J.G. v. Rincon Valley Union School District

Filing 6

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE. Show Cause Response due by 3/4/2024. Signed by Judge Sallie Kim on 2/7/2024. (bxl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/7/2024)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 J.G., Case No. 24-cv-00600-SK Plaintiff, 8 9 10 11 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE v. RINCON VALLEY UNION SCHOOL DISTRICT, United States District Court Northern District of California Defendant. 12 13 The parties initiated this action with a joint petition seeking court approval of a settlement 14 agreement. (Dkt. No. 1.) The parties have invoked the Court’s federal question jurisdiction based 15 on federal claims that are settled through the agreement. According to the petition, the parties 16 executed the settlement agreement in December 2023, which contains a condition that “Petitioner 17 shall . . . prepare and file a Petition with a court of competent jurisdiction for approval of the 18 Agreement as a valid compromise of” the minor child’s rights. (Dkt. No. 1-2, § (3)(a)(iii).) 19 Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. See, e.g., Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. 20 Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). Federal courts can only adjudicate cases which the 21 Constitution or Congress authorize them to adjudicate: those cases involving a federal question, 22 diversity of citizenship (where the parties are from diverse states), or those cases in which the 23 United States is a party. See, e.g., Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Insurance Co. of America, 511 U.S. 24 375 (1994). Federal courts are presumptively without jurisdiction over civil cases and the burden 25 of establishing the contrary rests upon the party asserting jurisdiction. Id. at 377. 26 In addition, federal courts are limited to adjudicating matters that are live “Cases and 27 Controversies” within the meaning of the Constitution. Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 578 U.S. 330, 337 28 (2016), quoting U.S. Const. art. III, § 2. “This is a ‘bedrock requirement.’” Raines v. Byrd, 521 1 U.S. 811, 818 (1997), quoting, Valley Forge Christian College v. Americans United for 2 Separation of Church and State, Inc., 454 U.S. 464, 471 (1982). “No principle is more 3 fundamental to the judiciary’s proper role in our system of government than the constitutional 4 limitation of federal-court jurisdiction to actual cases or controversies.” Simon v. Eastern Ky. 5 Welfare Rights Organization, 426 U.S. 26, 37 (1976). United States District Court Northern District of California 6 Therefore, the Court hereby issues an ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE setting forth how this 7 Court is a court of competent jurisdiction to approve the settlement agreement, in light of the 8 foregoing jurisdictional principles. The parties have until March 4, 2024, to submit a written 9 statement describing how this matter is justiciable in the federal courts, specifically addressing 10 standing and mootness. If the parties fail to provide a written statement in compliance with this 11 order, the Court will reassign this matter to a district judge with a recommendation to dismiss the 12 case for want of jurisdiction. 13 14 15 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: February 7, 2024 ______________________________________ SALLIE KIM United States Magistrate Judge 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?