Lee v. Kijakazi

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: June 3, 2022
• Docket: 5:21-cv-04045
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 SAN JOSE DIVISION 7 8 CATHRINE R LEE, Case No. 21-cv-04045-VKD

9 Plaintiff, ORDER RE MOTION TO DISMISS v. 10 Re: Dkt. No. 11 11 KILOLO KIJAKAZI, Defendant. 12

13 14 On May 27, 2021, plaintiff Cathrine Lee filed this action in federal court. Dkt. No. 1. Ms. 15 Lee alleges that she requested a copy of her disability file and medical records from the Social 16 Security Administration but received no response. Dkt. No. 1 at 1. The Commissioner moves to 17 dismiss Ms. Lee’s complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Federal Rule of 18 Civil Procedure 12(b)(1). Dkt. No. 11. 19 All parties have consented to magistrate judge jurisdiction. Dkt. Nos. 7, 16. The Court 20 finds this matter suitable for determination without oral argument. Civil L.R. 7-1(b). For the 21 reasons explained below, the Court considers the Commissioner’s motion to dismiss as a motion 22 for summary judgment and enters judgment in defendant’s favor. 23 I. LEGAL STANDARD 24 Federal courts may adjudicate only those cases which the Constitution and Congress 25 authorize them to adjudicate: those involving diversity of citizenship or a federal question, or 26 those to which the United States is a party. Mims v. Arrow Fin. Servs., LLC, 565 U.S. 368, 376– 27 77 (2012); see also Chen-Cheng Wang ex rel. United States v. FMC Corp., 975 F.2d 1412, 1415 1 matter jurisdiction.”), overruled on other grounds by United States ex rel. Hartpence v. Kinetic 2 Concepts, Inc., 792 F.3d 1121 (9th Cir. 2015). The Court has a continuing obligation to ensure 3 that it has subject matter jurisdiction. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). A defendant may raise the 4 defense of lack of subject matter jurisdiction by motion pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal 5 Rules of Civil Procedure. The plaintiff always bears the burden of establishing subject matter 6 jurisdiction. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). 7 A jurisdictional challenge may be facial or factual. Safe Air for Everyone v. Meyer, 373 8 F.3d 1035, 1039 (9th Cir. 2004). Where the attack is facial, the Court determines whether the 9 allegations contained in the complaint are sufficient on their face to invoke federal jurisdiction, 10 accepting all material allegations in the complaint as true and construing them in favor of the party 11 asserting jurisdiction. Id.; see also Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 501 (1975). Where the attack is 12 factual, however, “the court need not presume the truthfulness of the plaintiff’s allegations.” Safe 13 Air for Everyone, 373 F.3d at 1039. In resolving a factual dispute as to the existence of subject 14 matter jurisdiction, the Court may review extrinsic evidence beyond the complaint without 15 converting a motion to dismiss into one for summary judgment. Id. Once the moving party has 16 made a factual challenge by offering affidavits or other evidence to dispute the allegations in the 17 complaint, the party opposing the motion must “present affidavits or any other evidence necessary 18 to satisfy its burden of establishing that the court, in fact, possesses subject matter jurisdiction.” 19 St. Clair v. City of Chico, 880 F.2d 199, 201 (9th Cir. 1989); see also Savage v. Glendale Union 20 High Sch. Dist. No. 205, 343 F.3d 1036, 1040 n.2 (9th Cir. 2003). 21 However, when “ruling on a jurisdictional motion involving factual issues which also go to 22 the merits, the trial court should employ the standard applicable to a motion for summary 23 judgment.” Trentacosta v. Frontier Pac. Aircraft Industries, Inc., 813 F.2d 1553, 1558 (9th Cir. 24 1987) (citing Augustine v. United States, 704 F.2d 1074, 1077 (9th Cir. 1983)). Under this 25 standard, “the moving party should prevail only if the material jurisdictional facts are not in 26 dispute and the moving party is entitled to prevail as a matter of law.” Id. 27 II. DISCUSSION 1 failed to send her medical records and disability file to her address as one for mandamus relief 2 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1361. See 28 U.S.C. § 1361 (“[t]he district courts shall have original 3 jurisdiction of any action in the nature of mandamus to compel an officer or employee of the 4 United States or any agency thereof to perform a duty owed to the plaintiff”). 5 The Commissioner mounts a factual challenge to this Court’s jurisdiction, contending that 6 because the agency has already released the requested records to Ms. Lee, her claim is moot. Dkt. 7 No. 11 at 2–4. The Commissioner’s challenge is supported by the declaration of an assistant 8 district manager employed by the agency, who attests that the agency sent the requested records to 9 Ms. Lee’s address to 1975 Grandview St., Seaside, CA 93955. Dkt. No. 11 at 6–7. Indeed, Ms. 10 Lee appended to her complaint a copy of the request she faxed to the agency, on which she wrote 11 that her address is 1975 Grandview St., Seaside, California 93955. Dkt. No. 1 at 5. At the Court’s 12 direction, the Commissioner served a copy of his motion on Ms. Lee at her Seaside address and at 13 another address she provided in Sparks, Nevada. Dkt. Nos. 13, 14. 14 Because the question of whether Ms. Lee has received her requested records is 15 determinative of both subject matter jurisdiction and the substantive claim for relief, the Court 16 considers the Commissioner’s motion to dismiss for mootness as a motion for summary judgment. 17 See, e.g., Garcia v. Dardum, No. 21-cv-05081-SI, 2021 WL 4975049, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 26, 18 2021). Applying the summary judgment standard, defendant must show that there is no genuine 19 dispute of material fact regarding whether Ms. Lee received her requested records. See Miller v. 20 Lifestyle Creations, Inc., 993 F.2d 883 (9th Cir. 1993). Ms. Lee has not responded to the 21 Commissioner’s motion to dismiss, which is therefore unopposed. 22 Because the Commissioner’s assertions of fact are undisputed, the Court concludes that 23 Ms. Lee has not satisfied her burden of establishing that this Court possesses jurisdiction over this 24 action. See Trentacosta, 813 F.2d at 1558–59 (applying summary judgment standard to 25 defendant’s Rule 12(b)(1) motion where facts relevant to determining subject matter jurisdiction 26 went directly to the merits of plaintiff’s claim); see also Doe v. Madison Sch. Dist., No. 321, 177 27 F.3d 789, 797–98 (9th Cir. 1999) (“If an action or a claim loses its character as a live controversy, 1 dispute.”’) (citations omitted). 2 || I. CONCLUSION 3 For the foregoing reasons, defendant is entitled to judgment in its favor. 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 Dated: June 3, 2022 6 . 28 □ 7 VIRGINIA K. DEMARCHI 8 United States Magistrate Judge 9 10 11 12

15 16

= 17

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