Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-02543/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-02543-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TODD WHITE,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 16cv2543-LAB (KSC)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR

LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA

PAUPERIS; 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

LEAVE TO ELECTRONICALLY FILE

DOCUMENTS; AND

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE:

ABSTENTION OR DISMISSAL

vs.

TLC LEGAL SERVICES, INC.,

Defendant.

Plaintiff Todd White, proceeding pro se, filed a complaint, along with a motion to

proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) and a motion for leave to file documents electronically.

The IFP motion shows White lacks the money to pay the filing fee, and is GRANTED. 

For reasons discussed below, it does not appear the Court can or should exercise

jurisdiction over White’s claims, so it is unlikely White will be filing many more documents. 

The motion for leave to file documents electronically is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

Because White is proceeding IFP, the Court is required to screen the complaint, and

to dismiss it to the extent it fails to state a claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); Lopez v.

Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). The Court is also obligated to confirm

its own jurisdiction, sua sponte if necessary. See United Investors Life Ins. Co. v. Waddell

& Reed Inc., 360 F.3d 960, 966 (9th Cir. 2004).

- 1 - 16cv2543

Case 3:16-cv-02543-LAB-KSC Document 4 Filed 10/31/16 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

White brings claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act against his former employer

for failure to pay wages owed to him, and seeks both damages and an injunction. The

complaint makes clear, however, that White either has litigated or is now litigating

substantially the same claims in state court. (Complaint, ¶¶ 7–8 and Ex. 1 (Verified

Complaint for Damages.)

As the party invoking the Court's jurisdiction, White bears the burden of showing the

Court has legal power to act in this case. Harris v. Provident Life and Accident Ins. Co., 26

F.3d 930, 932 (9th Cir. 1994) (further citation omitted). Although White has alleged a federal

cause of action, his former employer’s alleged failure to pay wages is or was the subject of

proceedings in state court. White could have raised these claims as defenses in that action. 

If the state court has already adjudicated White’s claims, this Court could not proceed

further. Under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, federal courts lack jurisdiction to review state

court judgments. District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 486

(1983). 

But even if Rooker-Feldman is not implicated, it is likely the Court would abstain from

deciding it until state court proceedings are concluded, under the doctrine of Colorado River

Water Conservation Dist. v. United States, 424 U.S. 800 (1976). See Ross v. U.S. Bank

Nat’l Ass’n, 542 F. Supp. 2d 1014, 1021 (N.D. Cal., 2008) (applying Colorado River

abstention doctrine, where plaintiffs brought Fair Labor Standards claims in federal court that

substantially overlapped with claims pending in state court and where the balance of factors

favored abstention). If the Court does abstain, it would either stay this action or dismiss

without prejudice pending the resolution of the state court case. If the state court

adjudicates White’s claims, it is likely Rooker-Feldman would then divest this Court of

jurisdiction.

As an additional matter, it appears White’s claim for injunctive relief is moot. He

seeks a “final injunction ordering that the withholding of Plaintiff’s minimum and overtime

wages cease.” (Compl., Prayer for Relief, ¶ 1.) But White makes clear he no longer works

for Defendant, and is unlikely ever to work for it. If this claim is moot, the Court lacks

- 2 - 16cv2543

Case 3:16-cv-02543-LAB-KSC Document 4 Filed 10/31/16 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

jurisdiction to consider it. See Forest Guardians v. Johanns, 450 F.3d 455, 461 (9th Cir.

2006) (holding that federal courts lack jurisdiction to decide moot questions). 

White is therefore ORDERED to show cause why this action should not be dismissed

for lack of jurisdiction and why, even if the Court has jurisdiction over it, the Court should not

abstain under the doctrine of Colorado River. He may do so by filing a memorandum of

points and authorities, not longer than ten pages, within 21 calendar days from the date

this order is entered in the docket. The filing date is the date his memorandum is

received by the Court, not merely the date it is mailed or postmarked. If White fails to show

cause within the time permitted, this action will be dismissed without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: October 28, 2016

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS

United States District Judge

- 3 - 16cv2543

Case 3:16-cv-02543-LAB-KSC Document 4 Filed 10/31/16 Page 3 of 3