Bridgewater v. Rodriguez

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 8 9 ASHLEY JEAN BRIDGEWATER, Case No.: 3:25-cv-1444-CAB-MSB Plaintiff, 10 ORDER DISMISSING MATTER v. ALFREDO RODRIGUEZ, et al., 12 [Doc. Nos. 2, 4] 13 Defendants. 14 15 16 The Court gave Plaintiff until July 10, 2025 to explain how this Court has subject 17 matter jurisdiction over this matter. Plaintiff has represented in her “petition” that she has 18 19 a pending state court case for which she needs federal subpoenas issued to non-party 20 federal agencies. [Doc. No. 1.] In response to this Court’s order, Plaintiff has not 21 submitted a single case indicating that this Court can grant or enforce a subpoena without 22 23 a live case or controversy in federal court. Simply because a state court lacks the authority 24 to advance a discovery dispute does not mean that a federal court, one of limited 25 jurisdiction, necessarily has jurisdiction over that issue. 26 27 28 l A subpoena must issue from the court where the action is pending. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(a)(2). There is no pending federal action. Should Plaintiff seek to initiate federal 3 A litigation pursuant to an appropriate claim, the Court may consider her request. See 5 || Houston Bus. J., Inc. v. Off, of Comptroller of Currency, U.S. Dep’t of Treasury, 86 F.3d 6 1208, 1212 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (“[W]hen the underlying litigation is in state court, can a 7 g litigant eager to avoid the limitations on the state court’s subpoena power obtain a federal- 9 || court subpoena instead? We hold that in such circumstances the federal court lacks subject- 10 matter jurisdiction to issue the subpoena.”). 11 Plaintiff has not carried her burden to maintain jurisdiction. See Kokkonen v. 13 || Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). The Court dismisses this matter M4 with prejudice pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1). 15 16 Itis SO ORDERED. 17 / é iB — Dated: July 11, 2025 =. 18 Hon. Cathy Ann Bencivengo United States District Judge 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28