Melody J. Liddell v. Claiming any Legal or Equitable Rig

• Court: District Court, C.D. California
• Decided: May 18, 2022
• Docket: 8:22-cv-01000
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

Case 8:22-cv-01000-FWS-KES Document 5 Filed 05/18/22 Page 1 of 2 Page ID #:27

__________________________________________________________________ UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

Case No.: 8:22-cv-01000-FWS-KES Date: May 18, 2022 Title: Melody J. Liddell v. All Persons Unknown

Present: HONORABLE FRED W. SLAUGHTER, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Melissa H. Kunig N/A Deputy Clerk Court Reporter

Attorneys Present for Plaintiff: Attorneys Present for Defendant:

Not Present Not Present

PROCEEDINGS: Order to Show Cause Why Action Should Not be Dismissed for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction [1]

Before the court is petitioner Melody J. Liddell’s (“petitioner”) Ex Parte Verified Petition for Declaratory Relief and to Quiet Title (“Petition”). (Dkt. 1.) In the Petition, petitioner asserts this court has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because “[c]ivilian aircraft must be ‘registered’ with the Civil Registry of the Federal Aviation Administration.” (Dkt. 1 at ¶ 6.)

Courts “have an independent obligation to determine whether subject-matter jurisdiction exists, even in the absence of a challenge from any party.” Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 514 (2006). “If the court determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3).

Based on the state of the record, as applied to the applicable law, the court finds that petitioner has not adequately alleged facts supporting subject matter jurisdiction in the Petition. Petitioner’s citation to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 alone does not convert her claim into a federal cause of action. See Easton v. Crossland Mortg. Corp., 114 F.3d 979, 982 (9th Cir. 1997) (“[T]he mere reference of a federal statute in a pleading will not convert a state law claim into a federal cause of action if the federal statute is not a necessary element of the state law claim and no preemption exists.”). 28 U.S.C. § 1331 only provides that, “[t]he district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” Under that statute, “no matter what, federal question jurisdiction lies only ______________________________________________________________________________ CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL 1 Case 8:22-cv-01000-FWS-KES Document 5 Filed 05/18/22 Page 2 of 2 Page ID #:28

__________________________________________________________________ UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case No.: 8:22-cv-01000-FWS-KES Date: May 18, 2022 Title: Melody J. Liddell v. All Persons Unknown

where ‘it appears from the complaint that the right to relief depends upon the construction or application of federal law.’” Newtok Vill. v. Patrick, 21 F.4th 608, 619 (9th Cir. 2021) (quoting Grable & Sons Metal Prod., Inc. v. Darue Eng’g & Mfg., 545 U.S. 308, 313 (2005)).

Moreover, even if the court could exercise subject matter jurisdiction, the court doubts whether the circumstances presented in the Petition support granting ex parte relief. To justify ex parte relief, the moving party must establish: (1) that their cause of action will be irreparably prejudiced if the underlying motion is heard according to regular noticed procedures; and (2) that they are without fault in creating the crisis that requires ex parte relief, or that the crisis occurred as a result of excusable neglect. See Mission Power Engineering Co. v. Continental Casualty Co., 883 F. Supp. 488, 492-93 (C.D. Cal. 1995). Here, the Petition’s only stated basis for ex parte relief is petitioner’s desire to “proceed with the sale [of the aircraft] to a third party.” (Dkt. 1 at ¶ 18.)

For the reasons set forth above, petitioner is hereby ORDERED to show cause, in writing, no later than May 25, 2022, why this action should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Failure to respond to the Order to Show Cause may result in the dismissal and/or remand of this action.

Initials of Deputy Clerk: mku ______________________________________________________________________________ CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL 2