Anderson v. Hondo Minerals, Inc. et al
Filing
19
ORDERED that the case of Anderson v. Hondo Minerals, Inc., et al (Case No. 2:11-cv-00850-JCM-RJJ), be, and the same hereby is, DISMISSED without prejudice. Signed by Judge James C. Mahan on 8/9/11. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
6
7
8
JOHN THEODORE ANDERSON,
9
10
11
2:11-CV-850 JCM (RJJ)
Plaintiff,
v.
HONDO MINERALS, INC., et al.,
12
13
Defendants.
14
15
16
ORDER
Presently before the court is the case of Anderson v. Hondo Minerals, Inc. et al (Case No.
2:11-cv-00850-JCM -RJJ).
17
On June 23, 2011, the court ordered plaintiff Anderson to show cause why his complaint
18
should not be dismissed. (Doc. #13). Specifically, the court stated that within plaintiff’s “Verified
19
Petition For Libel Review/Judicial Review “Within The Admiralty” An “In Rem” Action Pursuant
20
To 28 U.S.C. 1333 and 1337” (doc. #1), he contends that this court has exclusive jurisdiction over
21
the matter because his breach of contract claim is an admiralty and/or
22
maritime claim. (Doc. #13). Further, the court held that “throughout the plaintiff’s complaint, he fails
23
to make clear to the court how the alleged breach of contract claim is governed by maritime law,”
24
and that “[t]here is no allegation or factual assertion that the contract involved the “navigation,
25
business or commerce of the sea.”
26
The court held that since plaintiff has not presented the court with a basis for subject matter
27
jurisdiction, it was inclined to dismiss the complaint sua sponte, without prejudice. 28 U.S.C. §
28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge
1
1333; Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). It ordered the plaintiff to demonstrate to the court the existence of
2
a maritime contract, and to show cause as to why the complaint should not be dismissed. (Doc. #13).
3
As ordered, plaintiff timely filed his “reply to order to show cause why complaint should not
4
be dismissed.” (Doc. #15). In the reply, plaintiff contends that his “file # 03052010 is [w]ithin the
5
[a]dmiralty because it was clearly stated so to everyone who received and was noticed properly
6
pursuant to FRCP 4&5.” Further, he claims that the “defendants in this [c]ase never refuted the use
7
of [a]dmiralty [l]aw and therefore have agreed by their [a]quiescence to have this case reviewed
8
within it.” Id. Moreover, he argues that congress has “brought admiralty up to the peaks of the
9
mountain,” and that this case is in admiralty because it is about “contracts,...commerce, mining and
10
minerals.” Id.
11
“Admiralty jurisdiction of the federal courts embraces two principal subjects; maritime
12
contracts and maritime torts.” Mediterranean Shipping Company, S.A. v. Ningbo Toptrade Imp. 2008
13
WL 1723183 (C.A. 9), citing Dockside Development Corp. v. Illinois International Port District,
14
479 F.Supp.2d 842, 846 (N.D. Ill. 2007). The courts have developed a subject matter test to
15
determine if a contract claim invokes admiralty jurisdiction, whereby if a contract relates to the
16
“navigation, business or commerce of the sea [it] is a maritime contract, and action on which may
17
be brought in admiralty.” Id. (Citing Simon v. Intercontinental Transport, 882 F.2d 1435, 1440 (9th
18
Cir. 1989).
19
Plaintiff has failed to provide the court with any support for his assertion that the case
20
involves “navigation, business or commerce of the sea” and is brought under admiralty law. First,
21
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure that plaintiff cites deal with summons and the serving and filing
22
of pleadings and other papers. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 and 5. Second, plaintiff merely contends that the
23
defendants (none of which have appeared in the case) acquiesced to the subject matter jurisdiction
24
and that admiralty laws extend to the “peaks of the mountain.” Neither argument supports a finding
25
that the case involves a maritime contract or is one that “may be brought in admiralty.”
26
Mediterranean Shipping Company, S.A.. 2008 WL 1723183 (citing Simon, 882 F.2d 1435, 1440).
27
Therefore, the court is inclined to dismiss the complaint sua sponte, without prejudice, for
28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge
-2-
1
lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Augustine v. United States, 704 F.2d 1074, 1077 (9th Cir.1983);
2
Franklin v. Oregon, State Welfare Div., 662 F.2d 1337, 1342 (9th Cir.1981) (the district court is
3
under a continuing duty to establish its own subject matter jurisdiction and may sua sponte dismiss
4
an action whenever it appears that jurisdiction is lacking.).
5
Accordingly,
6
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the case of Anderson v.
7
Hondo Minerals, Inc. et al (Case No. 2:11-cv-00850-JCM -RJJ) be, and the same hereby is,
8
DISMISSED without prejudice.
9
DATED August 9, 2011.
10
11
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge
-3-
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?