Rutledge v. Griswald et al
ORDER. IT IS ORDERED that 16 the defendants' motion to dismiss is GRANTED. If Rutledge can cure the jurisdictional defects in her complaint, she can file an amended complaint by 5/15/2017. If she fails to do so, this case will be closed. In t he alternative, Rutledge may attempt to pursue her claims in state court. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that 22 Rutledge's motion for summary judgment is DENIED. Signed by Judge Andrew P. Gordon on 5/1/17. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MR)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
DWIQUITA LANETTE RUTLEDGE,
ERICA COTY GRISWALD, et al.,
Case No. 2:15-cv-02175-APG-GWF
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
(ECF No. 16)
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
(ECF No. 22)
Plaintiff Dwiquita Rutledge brings claims for foster care abuse, assault, libel, and slander
arising from alleged misconduct by Clark County employees against Rutledge’s natural children.
The defendants move to dismiss the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Because the
complaint presents no federal question and Rutledge fails to assert diversity jurisdiction, I lack
jurisdiction over the matter and therefore grant the defendants’ motions to dismiss.
United States district courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life
Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). The Court has original jurisdiction over cases
“arising under the Constitution, treaties or laws of the United States” (called “federal question
jurisdiction”), or when the amount in controversy exceeds the sum of $75,000 and the citizenship
of each plaintiff is different from that of each defendant (called “diversity jurisdiction”). 28
U.S.C. § 1331; 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a); see also Caterpillar Inc. v. Lewis, 519 U.S. 61, 68 (1996)
(“complete diversity of citizenship” is required). The party asserting that this Court has
jurisdiction bears the burden of establishing it. See Kokkonen, 511 U.S. at 377.
Rutledge asserts claims for foster care abuse, assault, libel, and slander. These claims do
not arise under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. Because a federal
question is not presented on the face of Rutledge’s complaint I cannot exercise federal question
jurisdiction. See Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987). Rutledge did not assert
in her complaint that diversity jurisdiction exists, nor did she do so in her motion for summary
judgment. ECF No. 22.1 She therefore has not met her burden of establishing that subject matter
jurisdiction exists in this Court, so I must dismiss her complaint.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the defendants’ motion to dismiss (ECF No. 16) is
GRANTED. If Rutledge can cure the jurisdictional defects in her complaint, she can file an
amended complaint by May 15, 2017. If she fails to do so, this case will be closed. In the
alternative, Rutledge may attempt to pursue her claims in state court.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Rutledge’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No.
22) is DENIED.
DATED this 1st day of May, 2017.
ANDREW P. GORDON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Rutledge did not file a response to the motion to dismiss.
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?