Satterwhite v. 24 Hour Fitness

Filing 9

ORDER ADOPTING 7 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE AND DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND. Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman on 5/30/2017. (blflc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/30/2017)

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