Simmons v. Dale et al

Filing 4

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE. If Plaintiff does not, by 12/21/2012 demonstrate in writing the basis for this court's subject matter jurisdiction, the court will dismiss this action without prejudice. No hearing will be held on the Order to Show Cause unl ess ordered by the court. The Case Management Conference scheduled for 12/7/2012 is VACATED. Signed by Judge Edward J. Davila on 11/21/2012. (ejdlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/21/2012) (Additional attachment(s) added on 11/21/2012: # 1 Certificate of Service) (ecg, COURT STAFF).

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9

SAN JOSE DIVISION
CASE NO. 5:12-cv-04073 EJD

ROBERTA E. SIMMONS,

11

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
Plaintiff(s),

For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13

v.
GRADY DALE, JR., et. al.,

14
Defendant(s).
15
16

/
On August 2, 2012, Plaintiff Roberta E. Simmons (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint in this court

17

against Defendants Grady Dale, Jr. and Helen L. Dale. See Docket Item No. 1. Having reviewed

18

the complaint, it appears that Plaintiff seeks this court to intervene in a familial dispute involving a

19

third party, Edna O. Harris. However, the complaint is not organized in a manner such that distinct

20

causes of action can be discerned nor does the complaint identify the basis for this court’s

21

jurisdiction.

22

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 requires a federal plaintiff to include in a complaint “a

23

short and plain statement of the grounds for the court’s jurisdiction.” This is because “[f]ederal

24

courts are courts of limited jurisdiction.” Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co of America, 511 U.S.

25

375, 377 (1994). Federal jurisdiction can generally arise in two ways: (1) from the presence of a

26

federal question, or (2) from diversity of the parties. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 (federal question), 1332

27

(diversity). For jurisdiction based on a federal question, the court looks to the face of a

28

“well-pleaded complaint” to determine whether a cause of action is created by federal law or
1
CASE NO. 5:12-cv-04073 EJD
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

1

whether the plaintiff’s right to relief necessarily depends on the resolution of a substantial question

2

of federal law. Christianson v. Colt Indus. Operating Corp., 486 U.S. 800, 808 (1988) (citing

3

Franchise Tax Bd. of California v. Constr. Laborers Vacation Trust, 463 U.S. 1, 27-28 (1983)). For

4

diversity, federal courts have original jurisdiction where (1) opposing parties are citizens of different

5

states and (2) the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). “[A] party seeking

6

to invoke diversity jurisdiction should be able to allege affirmatively the actual citizenship of the

7

relevant parties” in order to confirm that all parties are diverse. Kanter v. Warner-Lambert Co., 265

8

F.3d 853, 857 (9th Cir. 2001).

existence of subject matter jurisdiction.” Thompson v. McCombe, 99 F.3d 352, 353 (9th Cir. 1996).

11
For the Northern District of California

“A party invoking the federal court’s jurisdiction has the burden of proving the actual

10

United States District Court

9

Whether subject matter jurisdiction exists is a threshold question that must be addressed before

12

reaching the merits of an action. See Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83, 94-95,

13

(1998).

14

Because it cannot be determined from the face of the complaint whether federal jurisdiction

15

exists over the instant dispute, the court issues this Order to Show Cause why this case should not be

16

dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. If Plaintiff does not, by December 21, 2012,

17

demonstrate in writing the basis for this court’s subject matter jurisdiction, the court will dismiss this

18

action without prejudice. Freeman v. Oakland Unified Sch. Dist., 179 F.3d 846, 847 (9th Cir. 1999).

19

No hearing will be held on the Order to Show Cause unless ordered by the court.

20
21

The Case Management Conference scheduled for December 7, 2012, is VACATED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

22
23

Dated: November 21, 2012
EDWARD J. DAVILA
United States District Judge

24
25
26
27
28
2
CASE NO. 5:12-cv-04073 EJD
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE