Johnson v. Veritas Investment Inc

District Court, N.D. California·Decided February 3, 2025·No. 3:23-cv-05190·Unknown

Opinion

JAMES ELLIS JOHNSON, Case No. 23-cv-05190-AMO

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

Before the Court is Defendants’ motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Having read the parties’ papers and carefully considered their arguments and the relevant legal authority, and good cause appearing, the Court hereby GRANTS Defendants’ motion, for the following reasons. Plaintiff filed the FAC on March 28, 2024, after the Court’s dismissal of his original Complaint. See FAC (ECF 19). Defendants filed a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, arguing anew that this Court lacks the authority to consider the FAC Complaint because Plaintiff has failed to allege a cause of action created by federal law or that the FAC requires resolution of a substantial question of federal law. See ECF 20. Plaintiff opposes the motion. ECF 23. As the Court stated in its previous Order, federal courts, as courts of limited jurisdiction, have subject matter jurisdiction over cases “arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331; see also Empire Healthcare Assur., Inc. v. McVeigh, 547 U.S. 677, 689-90 (2006) (noting that a case “arises under” federal law if a “well-pleaded complaint establishes either that federal law creates the cause of action or that the plaintiff’s right to relief The Court dismissed Plaintiff’s original Complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, noting that Plaintiff failed to allege either federal question jurisdiction or diversity jurisdiction. Order (ECF 15) at 2-3. To address this jurisdictional defect, Plaintiff adds “Discrimination” to his allegations describing the federal laws or rights involved in this case, along with “Definition [sic], Tort of Negligence, Tort of Liability, Accessories before the fact to Assault, Battery, Attempted Murder, Burglary.” FAC ¶ 3.1 Plaintiff proceeds to cite Title 31 U.S.C. § 6711 as a basis for his federal discrimination claim. FAC at 10 (ECF 19 at 12). That statute provides, “No person in the United States shall be excluded from participating in, be denied the benefits of, or be subject to discrimination under, a program or activity of a unit of general local government because of race, color, national origin, or sex if the government receives a payment under this chapter.” 31 U.S.C. § 6711(a). A plain reading of the statute demonstrates that it cannot apply in this case because all Defendants are private parties and Plaintiff does not name a local government as a defendant. Accordingly, Plaintiff has again failed to invoke the Court’s jurisdiction over the named Defendants. Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that leave to amend “shall be freely given when justice so requires . . . and this policy is to be applied with extreme liberality.” Morongo Band of Mission Indians v. Rose, 893 F.2d 1074, 1079 (9th Cir. 1990) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). However, “[f]utility of amendment can, by itself, justify the denial of a motion for leave to amend.” Gonzalez v. Planned Parenthood of Los Angeles, 759 F.3d 1112, 1116 (9th Cir. 2014) (citation omitted). Here, the Court concluded that it lacks subject- matter jurisdiction over this action. It does not appear that Plaintiff could cure this deficiency by submitting an amended complaint. Moreover, Plaintiff has previously been granted leave to amend to no avail. Thus, the Court finds that granting further leave to amend would prove futile and accordingly declines to permit another amended complaint. // // 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 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

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Johnson v. Veritas Investment Inc, (N.D. Cal. 2025).

Johnson v. Veritas Investment Inc (Johnson v. Veritas Investment Inc) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related