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)

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