Barge v. Ken Bett's Towing Company

Opinion

1 2 3 6 7 MELISSA BARGE, Case No. 21-cv-02558-TLT

8 Plaintiff, ORDER OF DISMISSAL FOR LACK 9 v. OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION Re: ECF No. 48 Defendant. 11

12 13 On March 27, 2023, the Court ordered Plaintiff Melissa Barge to respond to an Order to 14 Show Cause (“OSC”) why it should not dismiss this action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 15 See ECF No. 48. The Court advised Plaintiff that “by no later than April 17, 2023, Plaintiff shall 16 explain in writing why this case should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.” 17 Id. at 3. Alternatively, the Court advised Plaintiff that she may respond to the OSC by filing

18 a second amended complaint by April 17, 2023, which clearly and simply states (1) the basis for subject matter jurisdiction, (2) the claim 19 Plaintiff seeks to bring in federal court against Defendant Ken Bett’s Towing Company (see Fed. R. Civ. P. 8), and (3) the specific action(s) 20 Defendant Ken Bett’s Towing Company allegedly took, or failed to take, and the injury resulting from the claim. 21 22 Id. To date, Plaintiff has not complied with the OSC. Accordingly, for good cause appearing, the 23 Court hereby DISMISSES this action without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 24 See Leite v. Crane Co., 749 F.3d 1117, 1121 (9th Cir. 2014) (The plaintiff bears the burden of 25 establishing the existence of subject matter jurisdiction.); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3) (Courts 26 have a duty to consider its subject matter jurisdiction sua sponte.); Scholastic Entm’t, Inc. v. Fox 27 Entm’t Grp., Inc., 336 F.3d 982, 985 (9th Cir. 2003) (If a court determines it lacks subject matter 1 This Order terminates this action. 3 Dated: April 20, 2023

= fon 5 United States District Judge 6 7 8 9 10 11 a 12

13 14

15 16

= 17

Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28