Satterwhite v. 24 Hour Fitness

Filing 9


Download PDF
1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 SAN JOSE DIVISION 6 7 DACOREY SATTERWHITE, Plaintiff, 8 9 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 v. 24 HOUR FITNESS, Defendant. ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE AND DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND [Re: ECF 7] 12 13 Case No. 17-cv-00848-BLF Plaintiff DaCorrey Satterwhite seeks to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) and brings this 14 action against 24 Hour Fitness seeking $5 million in damages for alleged “pain and suffering.” 15 See Compl., ECF 1. Presently before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of 16 Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd, wherein Judge Lloyd recommends that the Court grant Mr. 17 Satterwhite’s motion for leave to proceed IFP and dismiss the complaint for lack of subject matter 18 jurisdiction. R&R, ECF 7. No objections to the R&R have been filed and the deadline to object 19 has elapsed. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). 20 The Court has reviewed Judge Lloyd’s R&R, and finds it correct, well reasoned, and 21 thorough. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the R&R in full and DISMISSES the complaint for 22 lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Additionally, for the reasons stated below, the Court declines 23 to grant leave to amend. 24 In deciding whether to grant leave to amend, the Court must consider the factors set forth 25 by the Supreme Court in Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178 (1962), and discussed at length by the 26 Ninth Circuit in Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048 (9th Cir. 2009). A district 27 court ordinarily must grant leave to amend unless one or more of the Foman factors is present: (1) 28 undue delay, (2) bad faith, or dilatory motive, (3) repeated failure to cure deficiencies by 1 amendment, (4) undue prejudice to the opposing party, and (5) futility of amendment. Eminence 2 Capital, 316 F.3d at 1052. “[I]t is the consideration of prejudice to the opposing party that carries 3 the greatest weight.” Id. However, a strong showing with respect to one of the other factors may 4 warrant denial of leave to amend. Id. 5 Four of the factors are not applicable here, however the Court finds the fifth factor 6 dispositive. As Judge Lloyd correctly discussed, federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. 7 Because Plaintiff and Defendant are residents of California, Mr. Satterwhite cannot proceed on the 8 basis of diversity jurisdiction. Moreover, the only claim set forth in the complaint is a state law 9 tort claim for emotional distress, thus, there are no facts that Mr. Satterwhite could allege that 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 13 would allow him to bring a federal claim. Accordingly, any claims must be pursued in state court. For the foregoing reasons the Court ADOPTS Judge Lloyd’s R&R and DISMISSES the above-titled action WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND. IT IS SO ORDERED. 14 15 16 17 Dated: May 30, 2017 ______________________________________ BETH LABSON FREEMAN United States District Judge 18 19 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?