Teplin v. The United States of America et al

Filing 34

ORDER DIRECTING SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING ON DEFENDANTS ( 12 , 17 ) MOTIONS TO DISMISS. Signed by Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. on 10/31/2017. (ndrS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/31/2017)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

KRIS TEPLIN,
Plaintiff,

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Case No.17-cv-02445-HSG

v.
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et
al.,

ORDER DIRECTING SUPPLEMENTAL
BRIEFING ON DEFENDANTS’
MOTIONS TO DISMISS
Re: Dkt. No. 12, 17

Defendants.

12
13

Plaintiff Kris Teplin alleges a cause of action against Defendant Wendi Joiner in her

14

individual capacity under the Drug Dealer Liability Act, Cal. Health & Safety Code §§ 11700 et

15

seq. (“DDLA”). Dkt. No. 1 ¶¶ 46-61. In her Complaint, however, Plaintiff does not allege a basis

16

for subject matter jurisdiction over Joiner. See id. ¶¶ 7 (alleging basis for subject matter

17

jurisdiction over Defendant United States but not Joiner). Neither Plaintiff nor Joiner mentions

18

the subject matter jurisdiction issue in its briefing.

19

“[F]ederal courts have a duty to raise and decide issues of subject matter jurisdiction sua

20

sponte, if at any time it appears that subject matter jurisdiction may be lacking.” Bank Julius Baer

21

& Co. Ltd v. Wikileaks, 535 F. Supp. 2d 980, 984 (N.D. Cal. 2008). Here, the Court may be able

22

to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s DDLA claim against Joiner, but it is also true

23

that “district courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim . . . if the claim

24

raises a novel or complex issue of [s]tate law.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(1). California courts have

25

said little about the DDLA or its statute of limitations, which the Court must analyze in

26

determining whether Plaintiff’s claim is time-barred. Thus, the case very likely presents a novel

27

issue of state law.

28

As such, Plaintiff, Joiner, and the United States are each directed to submit simultaneous

1

supplemental briefs, not to exceed five pages, focusing on whether and on what basis the Court

2

has subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s DDLA claim against Joiner. The briefs must be

3

submitted by November 14, 2017. No responsive filings will be permitted.

4
5

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: 10/31/2017

6
7
HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.
United States District Judge

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2