2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 AUCOPIOUS, LLC; JAMES E. DAVIS, an ) Case No.: 1:22-cv-01073 JLT CDB individual; ROY A. WALKER, an individual, ) 12 ) ORDER TO PLAINTIFFS TO SHOW CAUSE ) WHY THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT 13 Plaintiffs, ) SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR LACK ) 14 v. ) OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION ) 15 SPG14, LLC, et al., ) FOURTEEN DAY DEADLINE ) 16 Defendants. ) (Doc. 40) ) 17 )
18 AuCopious, LLC, and two of its managing members, James E. Davis, and Roy A. Walker, 19 assert claims for declaratory relief and public nuisance against the County of Kern and/or various 20 private landowners. (See generally Third Amended Complaint, Doc. 40.) Plaintiffs claim the Court has 21 subject matter jurisdiction over the declaratory relief claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 13321, 2201, and 22 22022; and supplemental jurisdiction over the public nuisance claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1367. (TAC 23
24 1 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) provides jurisdiction over certain actions between citizens of different states. Complete diversity is required by 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Thus, the “citizenship of each plaintiff [must be] diverse from the 25 citizenship of each defendant.” Caterpillar Inc. v. Lewis, 519 U.S. 61, 68 (1996). Because the TAC expressly alleges that Plaintiff Davis is a resident and citizen of California, (TAC ¶ 1), as are some of the named 26 Defendants, (see id. ¶¶ 2-3), it appears Plaintiffs may have inadvertently asserted jurisdiction under this statute. 27 The civil cover sheet filed with Plaintiffs’ initial complaint indicates that the case was brought under federal question jurisdiction. (Doc. 1-1.) Because there is a lack of diversity jurisdiction, the Court will proceed under 28 the assumption Plaintiffs intend to invoke jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. 2 Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief with respect to their public nuisance claim. (See Doc. 40 at 10, Prayer ¶ 3.) 1 ¶¶ 8-10.) Plaintiffs also assert they have standing “under the prudential standing doctrine.” (Id. ¶ 11.) 2 “‘Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction,’ possessing ‘only that power authorized by 3 Constitution and statute.’” Gunn v. Minton, 568 U.S. 251, 256 (2013) (quoting Kokkonen v. Guardian 4 Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994)); Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Servs., Inc., 545 U.S. 5 546, 552 (2005). The Court may consider the issue of subject matter jurisdiction sua sponte at any 6 time during the proceeding, and if the Court finds “it lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the court must 7 dismiss the action.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3); Scholastic Ent., Inc. v. Fox Ent. Grp., Inc., 336 F.3d 982, 8 985 (9th Cir. 2003); see also Iten v. Los Angeles, 81 F.4th 979, 984 (9th Cir. 2023) (“federal courts 9 have a duty to raise, sua sponte, questions of standing before addressing the merits” of a claim). The 10 burden of establishing subject matter jurisdiction “rests upon the party asserting jurisdiction.” 11 Kokkonen, 511 U.S. at 377; see also Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560-61 (1992) 12 (standing). 13 On September 30, 2024, the Court granted Federal Defendants’—the United States of 14 America, U.S. Bureau of Land Management, and U.S. Department of the Interior—motion to dismiss 15 for lack of jurisdiction. (Doc. 68.) Specifically, Federal Defendants argued that Plaintiffs did not have 16 standing to name them as defendants because Plaintiffs failed to allege Federal Defendants caused 17 their injuries. (Doc. 57 at 6.) Federal Defendants also argued Plaintiffs lacked standing because they 18 “alleged no invasion of a legally protected interest” related to maintenance of the roads at issue to 19 establish an injury in fact. (Id. at 6-7.) They asserted also that the Court lacked jurisdiction over the 20 declaratory relief claim because Plaintiffs’ “only proffered causes of action … are the Declaratory 21 Judgment Act and R.S. 2477,”3 neither of which “serve as a proper cause of action” for the declaratory 22 relief claim. (Id. at 7-8.) Plaintiffs filed a statement of non-opposition to Federal Defendants’ motion 23 to dismiss. (Doc. 63.) 24 Plaintiffs assert the same claims, seek the same relief, and allege nearly identical facts with 25 respect to the County of Kern, which remains a defendant in this action. (See TAC ¶¶ 25-28; Prayer
26 3 “Prior to its repeal in 1976,” Federal Revised Statute (R.S.) 2477 “authorized rights-of-way for the 27 construction of highways over public lands not reserved for public uses.” Lyon v. Gila River Indian Cmty., 626 F.3d 1059, 1076 (9th Cir. 2010) (citing 43 U.S.C. § 932) (repealed 1976)). “The law repealing R.S. 2477 28 expressly preserved any valid, existing right-of-way.” Id. (citing Adams v. United States, 3 F.3d 1254, 1258 (9th Cir. 1993)). een ee ee I I EI III III IE OS IEE REI ED OE
1 92.) Though Plaintiffs cite various federal statutes and case law in the TAC, they have not clearly 2 || identified a valid basis for the Court’s jurisdiction. (See TAC 4 8-11.)* Accordingly, 3 1. Within 14 days of the date of service of this order, Plaintiffs SHALL show cause, in 4 writing, why this action should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction 5 as to the causes of action against each Defendant separately. Alternatively, 6 Plaintiffs may voluntarily dismiss the action. 7 2. Thereafter, Defendants shall have 7 days to file a response to any brief filed by 8 Plaintiffs. 9 3. The matter will be decided on the papers without oral argument. 10 4. Plaintiffs are warned that failure to comply with this order may result in dismiss: 11 of the action without prejudice for failure to prosecute and failure to obey a cour 12 order. 13 14 || IT IS SO ORDERED. 1S |! Dated: _ October 24, 2024 16 TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 17 18 19 20 ao “42 U.S.C. § 1769(a), cited by Plaintiffs, is a statutory provision of the National School Lunch Act. 42 U.S.C. 22 || 1751, et seg. As such, it does not appear to apply to this case. Rather, Plaintiffs likely intended to cite 43 U.S.C § 1769(a), a statutory provision of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA), which repealed 23 ||R.S. 477. Insofar as Plaintiffs cite to Adams v.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 AUCOPIOUS, LLC; JAMES E. DAVIS, an ) Case No.: 1:22-cv-01073 JLT CDB individual; ROY A. WALKER, an individual, ) 12 ) ORDER TO PLAINTIFFS TO SHOW CAUSE ) WHY THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT 13 Plaintiffs, ) SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR LACK ) 14 v. ) OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION ) 15 SPG14, LLC, et al., ) FOURTEEN DAY DEADLINE ) 16 Defendants. ) (Doc. 40) ) 17 )
18 AuCopious, LLC, and two of its managing members, James E. Davis, and Roy A. Walker, 19 assert claims for declaratory relief and public nuisance against the County of Kern and/or various 20 private landowners. (See generally Third Amended Complaint, Doc. 40.) Plaintiffs claim the Court has 21 subject matter jurisdiction over the declaratory relief claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 13321, 2201, and 22 22022; and supplemental jurisdiction over the public nuisance claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1367. (TAC 23
24 1 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) provides jurisdiction over certain actions between citizens of different states. Complete diversity is required by 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Thus, the “citizenship of each plaintiff [must be] diverse from the 25 citizenship of each defendant.” Caterpillar Inc. v. Lewis, 519 U.S. 61, 68 (1996). Because the TAC expressly alleges that Plaintiff Davis is a resident and citizen of California, (TAC ¶ 1), as are some of the named 26 Defendants, (see id. ¶¶ 2-3), it appears Plaintiffs may have inadvertently asserted jurisdiction under this statute. 27 The civil cover sheet filed with Plaintiffs’ initial complaint indicates that the case was brought under federal question jurisdiction. (Doc. 1-1.) Because there is a lack of diversity jurisdiction, the Court will proceed under 28 the assumption Plaintiffs intend to invoke jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. 2 Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief with respect to their public nuisance claim. (See Doc. 40 at 10, Prayer ¶ 3.) 1 ¶¶ 8-10.) Plaintiffs also assert they have standing “under the prudential standing doctrine.” (Id. ¶ 11.) 2 “‘Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction,’ possessing ‘only that power authorized by 3 Constitution and statute.’” Gunn v. Minton, 568 U.S. 251, 256 (2013) (quoting Kokkonen v. Guardian 4 Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994)); Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Servs., Inc., 545 U.S. 5 546, 552 (2005). The Court may consider the issue of subject matter jurisdiction sua sponte at any 6 time during the proceeding, and if the Court finds “it lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the court must 7 dismiss the action.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3); Scholastic Ent., Inc. v. Fox Ent. Grp., Inc., 336 F.3d 982, 8 985 (9th Cir. 2003); see also Iten v. Los Angeles, 81 F.4th 979, 984 (9th Cir. 2023) (“federal courts 9 have a duty to raise, sua sponte, questions of standing before addressing the merits” of a claim). The 10 burden of establishing subject matter jurisdiction “rests upon the party asserting jurisdiction.” 11 Kokkonen, 511 U.S. at 377; see also Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560-61 (1992) 12 (standing). 13 On September 30, 2024, the Court granted Federal Defendants’—the United States of 14 America, U.S. Bureau of Land Management, and U.S. Department of the Interior—motion to dismiss 15 for lack of jurisdiction. (Doc. 68.) Specifically, Federal Defendants argued that Plaintiffs did not have 16 standing to name them as defendants because Plaintiffs failed to allege Federal Defendants caused 17 their injuries. (Doc. 57 at 6.) Federal Defendants also argued Plaintiffs lacked standing because they 18 “alleged no invasion of a legally protected interest” related to maintenance of the roads at issue to 19 establish an injury in fact. (Id. at 6-7.) They asserted also that the Court lacked jurisdiction over the 20 declaratory relief claim because Plaintiffs’ “only proffered causes of action … are the Declaratory 21 Judgment Act and R.S. 2477,”3 neither of which “serve as a proper cause of action” for the declaratory 22 relief claim. (Id. at 7-8.) Plaintiffs filed a statement of non-opposition to Federal Defendants’ motion 23 to dismiss. (Doc. 63.) 24 Plaintiffs assert the same claims, seek the same relief, and allege nearly identical facts with 25 respect to the County of Kern, which remains a defendant in this action. (See TAC ¶¶ 25-28; Prayer
26 3 “Prior to its repeal in 1976,” Federal Revised Statute (R.S.) 2477 “authorized rights-of-way for the 27 construction of highways over public lands not reserved for public uses.” Lyon v. Gila River Indian Cmty., 626 F.3d 1059, 1076 (9th Cir. 2010) (citing 43 U.S.C. § 932) (repealed 1976)). “The law repealing R.S. 2477 28 expressly preserved any valid, existing right-of-way.” Id. (citing Adams v. United States, 3 F.3d 1254, 1258 (9th Cir. 1993)). een ee ee I I EI III III IE OS IEE REI ED OE
1 92.) Though Plaintiffs cite various federal statutes and case law in the TAC, they have not clearly 2 || identified a valid basis for the Court’s jurisdiction. (See TAC 4 8-11.)* Accordingly, 3 1. Within 14 days of the date of service of this order, Plaintiffs SHALL show cause, in 4 writing, why this action should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction 5 as to the causes of action against each Defendant separately. Alternatively, 6 Plaintiffs may voluntarily dismiss the action. 7 2. Thereafter, Defendants shall have 7 days to file a response to any brief filed by 8 Plaintiffs. 9 3. The matter will be decided on the papers without oral argument. 10 4. Plaintiffs are warned that failure to comply with this order may result in dismiss: 11 of the action without prejudice for failure to prosecute and failure to obey a cour 12 order. 13 14 || IT IS SO ORDERED. 1S |! Dated: _ October 24, 2024 16 TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 17 18 19 20 ao “42 U.S.C. § 1769(a), cited by Plaintiffs, is a statutory provision of the National School Lunch Act. 42 U.S.C. 22 || 1751, et seg. As such, it does not appear to apply to this case. Rather, Plaintiffs likely intended to cite 43 U.S.C § 1769(a), a statutory provision of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA), which repealed 23 ||R.S. 477. Insofar as Plaintiffs cite to Adams v. United States, 3 F.3d 1254 (9th Cir. 1993), to support a finding 24 jurisdiction under the Quiet Title Act, such an assertion does not suffice. “[T]wo conditions must exist before □ 5 district court can exercise jurisdiction over an action under the Quiet Title Act: (1) the United States must clait an interest in the property at issue, and (2) there must be a disputed title to real property.” Leisnoi, Inc. v. Unite 26 States, 170 F.3d 1188, 1191 (9th Cir. 1999) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 2409a(a), (d)). “[A] dispute between [plaintiff] and some third party claiming an interest for itself will not satisfy the [jurisdictional] requirement ... there mus 97 || be a conflict in title between the United States and the plaintiff.” /d. at 1192. Plaintiffs make no reference to th QTA, and the United States has been dismissed from this action for want of jurisdiction, which Plaintiffs did 28 || not oppose. Moreover, the TAC does not assert a QTA claim, and Plaintiffs do not seek to quiet title to property.