1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 LYDIA HADLEY, et al., No. 1:19-cv-01395-DAD-SKO 12 Plaintiffs, 13 v. ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THIS

ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED

14 JEFFREY CHAUDHARI, et al., FOR LACK OF SUBJECT-MATTER

JURISDICTION

15 Defendants.

16

17 18 Plaintiffs filed their complaint in the above-captioned matter on October 3, 2019. (Doc. 19 No. 1.) In it, plaintiffs state two causes of action: (1) a wrongful death claim arising out of the 20 alleged medical malpractice of defendants; and (2) a negligent employment/negligent hiring claim 21 alleging that certain individuals were unqualified to practice medicine, and that the hiring and 22 employment of those individuals amounted to negligence. As the basis for jurisdiction, plaintiffs 23 invoke 28 U.S.C. § 1331, which provides that “district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all 24 civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” (Id. at ¶ 22.) 25 “Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction.” Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of 26 Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). “[S]ubject matter jurisdiction of the district court is not a 27 waivable matter and may be raised at anytime by one of the parties, by motion or in the 28 responsive pleadings, or sua sponte by the trial or reviewing court.” Emrich v. Touche Ross & 1 Co., 846 F.2d 1190, 1194 n.2 (9th Cir. 1988); see also Henderson ex rel. Henderson v. Shinseki, 2 | 562 U.S. 428, 434-35 (2011) (noting objections to subject matter jurisdiction may be raised post- 3 | trial). “It is to be presumed that a cause lies outside this limited jurisdiction, and the burden of 4 | establishing the contrary rests upon the party asserting jurisdiction.” Kokkonen, 511 U.S. at 377 5 | Cinternal citation omitted). 6 Although plaintiffs plead that jurisdiction is proper in this court on the basis of federal 7 | question jurisdiction, no federal causes of action are alleged in their complaint. Both wrongful 8 | death and negligent employment/hiring claims arise under state law. See Cal. Civ. Proc. Code 9 | § 377.60; Evan F. v. Hughson United Methodist Church, 8 Cal. App. 4th 828, 836 (1992). On the 10 | face of the complaint, therefore, neither claim appears to arise under the laws of the United States 11 | within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1331. 12 Accordingly, plaintiffs are directed to show cause in writing within ten days of this order 13 | why the action should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.! 14 | IT IS SO ORDERED. □ 15 JRA Dated: _ October 16, 2019 See | ae 16 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 ' The court notes that other bases may possibly exist to confer jurisdiction on this court. For instance, although somewhat unclear, the allegations suggest that defendant Central California 27 | Health Care System is affiliated with the United States Department of Veterans’ Affairs, and that at least some of the events described in the complaint may have occurred on federal property. 28 | (Doc. No. | at Jf 9, 23.)