Thompson et al v. City of Walnut Creek et al
Filing
34
ORDER granting FEMA's 7 MOTION to Dismiss Federal Defendant's Notice of Motion and Motion to Dismiss filed by Federal Emergency Management Agency, ORDER REMANDING CASE to state court. Signed by Judge Kandis A. Westmore on 5/2/2016. (kawlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/2/2016)
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7
LEANNE THOMPSON, et al.,
Case No. 16-cv-01221-KAW
Plaintiffs,
8
v.
9
10
CITY OF WALNUT CREEK, et al.,
Defendants.
ORDER GRANTING FEDERAL
DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS
AND REMANDING CASE TO STATE
COURT
Re: Dkt. No. 7
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
13
On February 5, 2016, Plaintiffs Leanne Thompson and Margaret Mary Thompson filed a
14
Petition for Writ of Administrative Mandamus in Contra Costa County Superior Court against the
15
City of Walnut Creek, and individuals, arising out of the City’s allegedly improper imposition of
16
certain conditions in relation to a building permit issued to remodel Plaintiffs’ home. (Compl.,
17
Not. of Removal, Dkt. No. 1, Ex. 1.) Federal Emergency Management Agency (“FEMA”) was
18
named as a real party in interest. On March 11, 2016, FEMA timely removed the lawsuit to
19
federal court.
20
On March 18, 2016, FEMA filed a motion to dismiss under Federal Rules of Civil
21
Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). (Def.’s Mot., Dkt. No. 7 at 1.) Specifically, FEMA argues that
22
Plaintiffs have failed to identify any waiver of sovereign immunity, and have also failed to state
23
any claims against FEMA. Id.
24
On April 11, 2016, Plaintiffs filed an opposition to the motion to dismiss, in which they
25
acknowledge that, “at this time,” no claims are alleged against FEMA. (Pls.’ Opp’n, Dkt. No. 28.)
26
Rather, Plaintiffs have “merely identified FEMA as a real party in interest” because they
27
“anticipate that the City will argue that their actions resulted from instructions from FEMA and/or
28
the City’s concern of the impact a different decision would have had on their eligibility and/or
1
participation in FEMA’s insurance program.” (Pls.’ Opp’n at 2.) Plaintiffs further stated that they
2
have no objection to dismissing FEMA without prejudice if the Court determines that FEMA is
3
not required to be joined as a party under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19, and that Plaintiffs’
4
writ can proceed without them. Id. at 2-3.
5
With respect to Plaintiffs’ requests, the only issues before the undersigned are whether the
6
Court has subject matter jurisdiction in this matter, and whether the petition fails to state a claim.
7
There is no pending motion for joinder, nor is there a pending motion to dismiss under Rule
8
12(b)(7) for failure to join a party, so the Court declines to make a determination regarding
9
FEMA’s indispensability under Rule 19.
10
Accordingly, the Court deems this matter suitable for disposition without oral argument
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
pursuant to Civil L.R. 7-1(b), and finds that the petition does not allege the exhaustion of
12
administrative remedies, thereby divesting the Court of subject matter jurisdiction, nor are any
13
claims asserted against FEMA, and GRANTS Defendant’s motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1)
14
and 12(b)(6). Furthermore, given Plaintiffs’ concession that they are not asserting any claims
15
against FEMA at this juncture, the dismissal is without prejudice.
16
Since the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the case is REMANDED to state
17
court for further proceedings.
18
IT IS SO ORDERED.
19
Dated: May 2, 2016
__________________________________
KANDIS A. WESTMORE
United States Magistrate Judge
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?