Michael J. Holmes v. Kading Briggs, LLP

• Court: District Court, C.D. California
• Decided: May 11, 2021
• Docket: 2:18-cv-04435
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 O 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MICHAEL J. HOLMES, ) Case No. CV 18-04435 DDP (JCx) ) 12 Plaintiff, ) ) ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION 13 v. ) TO DISMISS ) 14 KADING BRIGGS, LLP, ) ) [Dkt. 11] 15 Defendants. ) ) 16 Presently before the court is Defendant Kading Briggs, LLP’s 17 Motion to Dismiss. Having considered the submissions of the 18 parties, the court GRANTS the motion and adopts the following 19 Order.1 20 I. Discussion 21 Plaintiff’s Complaint alleges that in a pending lawsuit 22 against Defendants’ clients in Los Angeles Superior Court, 23 Defendants “have continuously provided the Plaintiff objections to 24 the Plaintiffs [sic] discovery request that were not responses 25 given by their client.” The Complaint also alleges that Defendants 26 refused to accede to Plaintiff’s requests for a change in certain 27 28 deposition dates.* The Civil Cover Sheet, filed alongside 2 Plaintiff’s Complaint, indicates a cause of action under 42 C.F.R. 31 $ 93.103, related to Defendants’ alleged filing of fabricated documents in state court. (Dkt. 1-2 at 1.) 5 Defendant now moves to dismiss this case for lack of Jurisdiction. A motion under Rule 12(b) (1) may challenge the 7 court’s jurisdiction facially, based on the legal sufficiency of the claim, or factually, based on the legal sufficiency of the jurisdictional facts. White v. Lee, 227 F.3d 1214, 1242 (9th Cir. 2000) (citing 2 James Wm. Moore et al., Moore’s Federal Practice 12.30[4], at 12-38 to 12-41 (3d ed.1999)). Where the motion attacks the complaint on its face, the court considers the complaint’s allegations to be true, and draws all reasonable 14]) inferences in the plaintiff’s favor. Doe v. Holy See, 557 F.3d 15}/ 1066, 1073 (9th Cir. 2009). In a factual challenge, the court is not required to accept the allegations of the complaint as true and may consider additional evidence outside of the pleadings. Maya v. Centex Corp., 658 F.3d 1060, 1067 (9th Cir. 2011). Once the moving party has presented evidence showing a lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, the burden shifts to “the party opposing the motion [to] furnish affidavits or other evidence necessary to satisfy its burden of establishing subject matter jurisdiction.” Safe Air for Everyone v. Meyer, 373 F.3d 1035, 1039 (9th Cir. 2004). If the 24] plaintiff cannot meet its burden of establishing the jurisdiction 25]/it seeks to invoke, the court must dismiss the case under Rule 261 12 (b) (1). 27 28 * The Complaint spans five sentences in its entirety.

1 Plaintiff’s Complaint contains no allegations or statements 2 pertaining to this Court’s jurisdiction. Even considering the 3 information contained in Plaintiff’s Civil Cover Sheet, it appears 4 that this court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. District courts 5 have diversity jurisdiction over all civil suits where the amount 6 in controversy “exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of 7 interest and costs” and there exists complete diversity of 8 citizenship between the parties. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a); Caterpillar 9 Inc., v. Lewis, 519 U.S. 61, 68 (1996). Complete diversity exists 10 where the parties are citizens of different states. 28 U.S.C. § 11 1332(a). Here, although Plaintiff’s cover sheet does suggest that 12 the amount in controversy requirement may be met, there is no 13 indication that Plaintiff seeks to invoke this Court’s diversity 14 jurisdiction, and no information regarding the citizenship of 15 either party. Rather, Plaintiff indicates that both he and 16 Defendant are residents of Los Angeles County. Nor does it appear 17 that Plaintiff could amend his complaint to properly allege 18 complete diversity. Plaintiff concedes in his Opposition that he 19 is a citizen of California, and Defendant has established that it, 20 too, is a California citizen. (Declaration of Glenn Briggs, ¶ 2.) 21 This Court, therefore, cannot exercise diversity jurisdiction over 22 this matter. 23 This Court also has jurisdiction to consider “all civil 24 actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the 25 United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. “Under the longstanding 26 well-pleaded complaint rule, however, a suit arises under federal 27 law only when the plaintiff’s statement of his own cause of action 28 shows that it is based upon federal law.” Vaden v. Discover Bank, 1 556 U.S. 49, 60 (2009) (internal quotation marks, alteration, and 2 citation omitted). Although Plaintiff’s Complaint makes no 3 reference to any federal law, the civil cover sheet does invoke 42 4 C.F.R. § 93.103. That regulation, however, simply defines 5 “research misconduct” for purposes of policy statements pertaining 6 to the Public Health Service, a part of the Department of Health 7 and Human Services. Neither Plaintiff’s Complaint nor his 8 Opposition to the instant motion provide any explanation how that 9 federal regulation is any way pertinent to Plaintiff’s allegations 10 about Defendant’s discovery conduct in state court. Because there 11 is no federal question at issue in this case, this court lacks 12 subject matter jurisdiction. 13 II. Conclusion 14 For the reasons stated above, Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss is 15 GRANTED. 16 17 18 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Dated: May 11, 2021 DEAN D. PREGERSON 27 United States District Judge 28