Thieriot v. Pacific Gas and Electric Company

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ELISABETH I. THIERIOT, Case No. 24-cv-07476-AGT

Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR v. RECONSIDERATION

PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COM- Re: Dkt. No. 14 PANY, et al., Defendants.

Plaintiff Elisabeth Thieriot (Thieriot) files a motion for clarification or reconsidera- tion in response to the Court’s second screening order. See dkt. 14 (motion); dkt. 13 (second screening order). The Court now denies the motion for reconsideration. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b). Nothing in the instant motion for clarification or reconsideration changes the Court’s decision up to this point. Federal courts have limited jurisdiction. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). For a federal court to exercise subject matter jurisdiction, there must be either diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a), or federal question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Thieriot’s first amended complaint at dkt. 11 failed, among other things, to state a claim over which the Court has subject matter jurisdiction. As such, the Court issued a sec- ond screening order at dkt. 13. Thieriot may attempt to cure her defective operative complaint and file a second amended complaint by April 25, 2025.! If Thieriot does not timely file, or if she files a second amended complaint which does not cure the lack of subject matter jurisdiction, then the Court will request that this matter be transferred to a district judge and will recommend that the district judge dismiss this case. This order dispenses with dkt. 14. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: April 7, 2025 AlexSv Tse United States Magistrate Judge

' If Thieriot would like the Court to consider her motion at dkt. 14 to be the second amended complaint, then Thieriot should refile the motion as her second amended complaint. The Court will at that point review and consider her submission as the new complaint.