Khoa Dang Nguyen v. The General Insurance

Filing 7

ORDER THAT CASE BE REASSIGNED WITH REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION. Signed by Judge Paul S. Grewal on June 10, 2014. (psglc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/10/2014)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9

SAN JOSE DIVISION

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11

KHOA DANG NGUYEN,

12

Plaintiff,
v.

13
14

THE GENERAL INSURANCE,
Defendant.

15
16
17
18

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 5:14-cv-01567-PSG
ORDER THAT CASE BE
REASSIGNED WITH REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION
(Re: Docket Nos. 2, 4 and 5)

Pursuant to the court’s denial of Plaintiff Khoa Dang Nguyen application to proceed in
forma pauperis in this case, the court ordered Nguyen to pay the filing fee for his case within seven
days to avoid dismissal of the case without prejudice. 1 Eight days later, the court issued an order

19
20

that dismissed Nguyen’s case without prejudice because no filing fee had yet been paid. 2 Later that

21

day, however, Nguyen paid the filing fee to the Clerk. Although Plaintiff has since consented to

22

magistrate judge jurisdiction, 3 Defendant has not.

23
24

Because Nguyen has not provided the court with an adequate basis to assume subject matter
jurisdiction over the case, and the court does not have consent of all the parties to the case, the

25
26

1

See Docket No. 4.

27

2

See Docket No. 5.

28

3

See Docket No. 6.

1
Case No. 5:14-cv-01567-PSG
ORDER THAT CASE BE REASSIGNED WITH REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

1

court orders the case reassigned to a district judge with the recommendation that the district judge

2

dismiss the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 4

3

A.

Subject Matter Jurisdiction Does Not Appear to Lie Over This Case
“In order for this court to have subject matter jurisdiction over” the “cause of action,

4
5

Plaintiff would have to either: 1) also allege a federal cause of action; or 2) show diversity of

6

citizenship between” Plaintiff and Defendant. 5 Nguyen’s complaint alleges this court possesses

7

diversity jurisdiction over the case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332. 6 The complaint itself alleges the

8
9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11

case belongs in federal court “because none of the plaintiffs live in the same state as any of the
defendants.” 7 But diversity jurisdiction also requires Nguyen to show the amount-in-controversy
exceeds the jurisdictional minimum. Here, Nguyen’s opening settlement demand was for

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

4

The court orders the case reopened and reassigned in light of the Ninth Circuit’s holding in
Tripati v. Rison that denial of an application to proceed in forma pauperis is a case dispositive
decision requiring (1) consent of the parties or (2) reassignment to an Article III judge. See Tripati
v. Rison, 847 F.2d 548 (9th Cir. 1988).
A denial of a motion to proceed in forma pauperis is a final judgment that is
immediately appealable pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Roberts v. United States District
Court, 339 U.S. 844 (1950). Under 28 U.S.C. § 636, a United States Magistrate may not
enter a final judgment on a motion to proceed in forma pauperis unless the matter has been
referred to him or her by the court and the parties consent to have the magistrate decide the
motion and enter judgment. 28 U.S.C. § 636(c); Ambrose v. Welch, 729 F.2d 1084
(6th Cir.1984); Alaniz v. California Processors, Inc., 690 F.2d 717, 720 (9th Cir.1982);
see also, Geaney v. Carlson, 776 F.2d 140, 142 (7th Cir.1985).
5
Lowery v. City of Santa Clara, Case No. 5:09-cv-00229-PVT, 2009 WL 975455, at *3
(N.D. Cal. Apr. 10, 2009) (citing Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 513 (2006))
There are two possible bases for subject-matter jurisdiction, which are contained in
28 U.S.C. sections 1331 and 1332. Section 1331 provides for “[f]ederal-question”
jurisdiction, while Section 1332 provides for “[d]iversity of citizenship” jurisdiction.
A plaintiff properly invokes Section 1331 jurisdiction when he pleads a claim “arising
under” the Constitution or laws of the United States. See Arbaugh, 546 U.S. at 513. A
plaintiff can invoke Section 1332 jurisdiction when he presents a claim between parties of
diverse citizenship that exceeds the required jurisdictional amount, currently $75,000. Id.
6
See Docket No. 1 at 2.
7

26
27
28

See id. Although no defendant has sought dismissal of this case for want of subject matter
jurisdiction, the court addresses the issue sua sponte. See Mansfield, C. & L.M.R. Co. v. Swan,
111 U.S. 379, 382 (1884) (challenge to a federal court’s subject-matter jurisdiction may be made at
any stage of the proceedings, and the court should raise the question sua sponte); Fed. R. Civ. P.
12(h)(3) (“Whenever it appears by suggestion of the parties or otherwise that the court lacks
jurisdiction of the subject matter, the court shall dismiss the action.”).
2
Case No. 5:14-cv-01567-PSG
ORDER THAT CASE BE REASSIGNED WITH REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION