Johnson v. Veritas Investment Inc

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: February 3, 2025
• Docket: 3:23-cv-05190
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 JAMES ELLIS JOHNSON, Case No. 23-cv-05190-AMO

8 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ 9 v. MOTION TO DISMISS FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 10 VERITAS INVESTMENT INC, et al., Re: Dkt. No. 20 Defendants. 11

12 13 Before the Court is Defendants’ motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) 14 for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Having read the parties’ papers and carefully considered 15 their arguments and the relevant legal authority, and good cause appearing, the Court hereby 16 GRANTS Defendants’ motion, for the following reasons. 17 Plaintiff filed the FAC on March 28, 2024, after the Court’s dismissal of his original 18 Complaint. See FAC (ECF 19). Defendants filed a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter 19 jurisdiction, arguing anew that this Court lacks the authority to consider the FAC Complaint 20 because Plaintiff has failed to allege a cause of action created by federal law or that the FAC 21 requires resolution of a substantial question of federal law. See ECF 20. Plaintiff opposes the 22 motion. ECF 23. 23 As the Court stated in its previous Order, federal courts, as courts of limited jurisdiction, 24 have subject matter jurisdiction over cases “arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the 25 United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331; see also Empire Healthcare Assur., Inc. v. McVeigh, 547 U.S. 26 677, 689-90 (2006) (noting that a case “arises under” federal law if a “well-pleaded complaint 27 establishes either that federal law creates the cause of action or that the plaintiff’s right to relief 1 The Court dismissed Plaintiff’s original Complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, 2 noting that Plaintiff failed to allege either federal question jurisdiction or diversity jurisdiction. 3 Order (ECF 15) at 2-3. To address this jurisdictional defect, Plaintiff adds “Discrimination” to his 4 allegations describing the federal laws or rights involved in this case, along with “Definition [sic], 5 Tort of Negligence, Tort of Liability, Accessories before the fact to Assault, Battery, Attempted 6 Murder, Burglary.” FAC ¶ 3.1 Plaintiff proceeds to cite Title 31 U.S.C. § 6711 as a basis for his 7 federal discrimination claim. FAC at 10 (ECF 19 at 12). That statute provides, “No person in the 8 United States shall be excluded from participating in, be denied the benefits of, or be subject to 9 discrimination under, a program or activity of a unit of general local government because of race, 10 color, national origin, or sex if the government receives a payment under this chapter.” 31 U.S.C. 11 § 6711(a). A plain reading of the statute demonstrates that it cannot apply in this case because all 12 Defendants are private parties and Plaintiff does not name a local government as a defendant. 13 Accordingly, Plaintiff has again failed to invoke the Court’s jurisdiction over the named 14 Defendants. 15 Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that leave to amend “shall be 16 freely given when justice so requires . . . and this policy is to be applied with extreme liberality.” 17 Morongo Band of Mission Indians v. Rose, 893 F.2d 1074, 1079 (9th Cir. 1990) (citation and 18 internal quotation marks omitted). However, “[f]utility of amendment can, by itself, justify the 19 denial of a motion for leave to amend.” Gonzalez v. Planned Parenthood of Los Angeles, 759 20 F.3d 1112, 1116 (9th Cir. 2014) (citation omitted). Here, the Court concluded that it lacks subject- 21 matter jurisdiction over this action. It does not appear that Plaintiff could cure this deficiency by 22 submitting an amended complaint. Moreover, Plaintiff has previously been granted leave to 23 amend to no avail. Thus, the Court finds that granting further leave to amend would prove futile 24 and accordingly declines to permit another amended complaint. 25 // 26 // 27 1 For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of 2 || subject matter jurisdiction. The Court hereby DISMISSES the action without leave to amend. 3 The Clerk of Court shall close the file in this matter. 4 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 || Dated: February 3, 2025 7 □ g . ARACELI MARTINEZ-OLGUIN 9 United States District Judge 10 11 12

© 15 16 & = 17

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