CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

Case No. 8:20-cv-01447-JLS-DFM Date: August 30, 2021 Title: William Lawrence McGrann v. Beverly McGrann Walker et al Present: Honorable JOSEPHINE L. STATON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Melissa Kunig N/A Deputy Clerk Court Reporter

ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR PLAINTIFF: ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR DEFENDANT:

Not Present Not Present

PROCEEDINGS: (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER (1) TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THIS

CASE SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR LACK OF

SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION AND (2) VACATING

HEARING ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR DEFAULT

JUDGMENT ON SEPTEMBER 17, 2021

Plaintiff filed this action on August 5, 2020, alleging, in brief, that Defendant coerced Plaintiff’s former girlfriend to hide her pregnancy from him. (Compl., Doc 1.) Having reviewed the Complaint, it appears the Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over this action. “Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction.” Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). The district court has a duty to establish subject matter jurisdiction sua sponte, whether the parties raise the issue or not. United Inv’rs Life Ins. Co. v. Waddell & Reed Inc., 360 F.3d 960, 967 (9th Cir. 2004). As the party invoking federal jurisdiction, Plaintiff has the burden of establishing the existence of subject matter jurisdiction. See Kokkonen, 511 U.S at 377. Plaintiff attempts to invoke the Court’s federal question jurisdiction. The Complaint asserts that “[s]ubject matter jurisdiction is authorized under 28 U.S.C. § 1367, Ankenbrandt v. Richards, 504 U.S. 689 (1992) domestic relations exception for torts, and Griffin v. Breckenridge, 403 U.S. 88 (1971) 14th amendment right to equal protection of laws and liberty interests.” (Compl. ¶ 2.) The Complaint also cites to 28 U.S.C. § 1343 (1)-(4); 42 U.S.C. §§ 1986, 1985; and the United States Constitution. (Id. ¶ 2.) Where a plaintiff invokes the Court’s federal question jurisdiction, determination of whether the case “arises under” federal law is governed by the “well- pleaded complaint rule,” which provides that “federal jurisdiction exists only when a

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

Case No. 8:20-cv-01447-JLS-DFM Date: August 30, 2021 Title: William Lawrence McGrann v. Beverly McGrann Walker et al federal question is presented on the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.” Caterpillar, Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987). Here, Plaintiff has sued a private individual, and the Complaint’s allegations concern a paternity/child custody dispute. Thus, Plaintiff’s reliance on constitutional rights and federal statutes that provide for a right of action against government officials is misplaced—those laws are not applicable to Defendant. The Complaint also purports to plead a claim for violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”); however, Plaintiff alleges only that Defendant “has direct knowledge of violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act,” and does not plead any facts from which the Court can plausibly conclude Defendant violated the ADA. (Compl. ¶ 28.) In sum, the allegations of Plaintiff’s Complaint do not give rise to any question arising under federal law. Accordingly, Plaintiff is ORDERED to show cause, in writing (in no more than five (5) pages), no later than twenty-one (21) days from the date of this Order, why the Court should not dismiss this action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Failure to timely respond will result in the immediate dismissal of this action without further notice. Further, in light of the issues identified herein, the hearing on Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment (Doc. 20), currently set for September 17, 2021 is VACATED.

Initials of Preparer: mku