Laine
Laine v. Superior Court of Alameda County Hayward Hall of Justice
Opinion
trial_court Opinion
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 JOSHUA LAINE, et al., Case No. 3:18-cv-04390-JD
8 Plaintiffs,
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
v. 9 Re: Dkt. Nos. 152, 163, 164, 167, 168, 169,
172, 173, 174, 175, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 10 SUPERIOR COURT OF ALAMEDA 185, 186, 187, 190, 194, 209
COUNTY HAYWARD HALL OF
11 JUSTICE, et al., Defendants. 12 13 14 Plaintiffs (“Laine”) filed a putative class action against a number of California state courts, 15 state court judges, state court personnel, counties, attorneys and others for claims arising out of 16 state court family law proceedings. Dkt. No. 152. After a prior dismissal with leave to amend, 17 Laine has not established federal subject matter jurisdiction, and so the case is dismissed. 18 Laine has the burden of establishing jurisdiction. See Kingman Reef Atoll Invs., L.L.C. v. 19 United States, 541 F.3d 1189, 1197 (9th Cir. 2008). The Court’s prior order of dismissal 20 concluded that this case is fundamentally a child custody dispute, which means there is no…