Floyd v. Saber Fitness Hegenberger, LLC

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 MICHAEL DEVIN FLOYD, Case No. 24-cv-01278-TSH

11 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: 12 v. SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION

13 SABER FITNESS HEGENBERGER, LLC, 14 Defendant.

15 16 On July 3, 2023, Plaintiff Michael Devin Floyd filed his initial complaint in this case in the 17 Alameda Superior Court, Case No. 23CV037550, naming “Planet Fitness of Oakland, CA,” as the 18 defendant. ECF No. 1-1; Ex. A. On January 30, 2024, Floyd filed a First Amended Complaint 19 naming Defendant Saber Fitness Hegenberger, LLC and bringing ten causes of action: (1) 42 20 U.S.C. § 1981; (2) 42 U.S.C. § 2000a; (3) California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act, Cal. Civ. Code § 21 51; (4) Cal. Civ. Code § 51.5; (5) California’s Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 22 17200; (6) California’s Consumer Legal Remedies Act, Cal. Civ. Code § 1750; (7) Negligent 23 Training and Supervision; (8) “Restatement (Third) of Law, Agency Law, Agency § 7.04, § 7.06, 24 § 7.07, § 7.08 – Principal’s Liability to a Third Party”; (9) Negligent Infliction of Emotional 25 Distress; and (10) Cal. Civ. Code § 1714. 26 On March 1, 2024, Saber removed the matter to this Court on the basis of federal question 27 jurisdiction, ECF No. 1, and subsequently moved to dismiss the complaint, ECF No.13. On June 1 ECF No. 39. On July 11, 2024, Floyd filed a Second Amended Complaint, alleging only state law 2 causes of action. ECF No. 40. 3 “Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. They possess only that power authorized 4 by Constitution and statute.” Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 5 (1994). “Subject matter jurisdiction can never be forfeited or waived and federal courts have a 6 continuing independent obligation to determine whether subject-matter jurisdiction exists.” 7 Leeson v. Transamerica Disability Income Plan, 671 F.3d 969, 975 n.12 (9th Cir. 2012) (internal 8 quotation marks and citations omitted); Valdez v. Allstate Ins. Co., 372 F.3d 1115, 1116 (9th Cir. 9 2004) (noting that district courts are “obligated to consider sua sponte whether [they] have subject 10 matter jurisdiction”). There are two bases for federal subject matter jurisdiction: (1) federal 11 question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and (2) diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. 12 A district court has federal question jurisdiction in “all civil actions arising under the Constitution, 13 laws, or treaties of the United States.” Id. at § 1331. A district court has diversity jurisdiction 14 “where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, . . . and is between citizens 15 of different states, or citizens of a State and citizens or subjects of a foreign state . . . .” Id. § 16 1332(a)(1)-(2). 17 As Floyd brings only state law claims in his second amended complaint, federal question 18 jurisdiction is lacking. As to diversity jurisdiction, both parties are in California. See Sec. Am. 19 Compl. at 2. As such, subject matter jurisdiction appears to be lacking. As to Floyd’s state law 20 claims, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), the Court may “decline supplemental jurisdiction over 21 a claim” if it “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction,” and need not state 22 its reason for dismissal. San Pedro Hotel Co., Inc. v. City of L.A., 159 F.3d 470, 478 (9th Cir. 23 1998); Yates v. Money Source, Inc., 2023 WL 4305059, at *6 (E.D. Cal. June 30, 2023). As this 24 case remains in the pleading stage, it is likely that judicial economy favors declining to exercise 25 supplemental jurisdiction. 26 Accordingly, the Court ORDERS either or both parties to show why this case should not 27 be remanded for lack of jurisdiction. Either or both parties shall file a written response to this 1 || jurisdiction. 2 IT IS SO ORDERED. 3 4 Dated: July 15, 2024

THOMAS S. HIXSON 6 United States Magistrate Judge 4 8 9 10 11 12

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