Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_19-cv-03626/USCOURTS-cand-5_19-cv-03626-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL MIROYAN,

Plaintiff,

v.

TAE KAI, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 19-cv-03626-NC 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: 

SUBJECT MATTER 

JURISDICTION

On June 21, 2019, plaintiff Michael Miroyan filed this lawsuit alleging that 

Defendants conspired to defraud him, interfere with his business, and violate his civil 

rights. See Dkt. No. 1. Pending before the Court is Defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack 

of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to meet pleading standards. See Dkt. No. 6.

Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. See Kokkonen v. Guardian Life 

Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). They may only exercise authority over cases 

and controversies authorized by the U.S. Constitution or Congress. Id. Subject matter 

jurisdiction allows a court to render judgments over the claims in the case. See Stoll v. 

Gottlieb, 305 U.S. 165, 171 (1938). Jurisdiction is the court’s power to hear the case, a 

separate issue from whether the plaintiffs’ allegations entitle them to relief. Morrison v. 

Nat’l Australia Bank Ltd., 561 U.S. 247, 254 (2010). If a federal court lacks subject matter 

jurisdiction, it must dismiss the entire complaint. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3).

Case 5:19-cv-03626-NC Document 8 Filed 07/18/19 Page 1 of 2
2

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

Northern District of California

There are two primary forms for subject matter jurisdiction: federal question and 

diversity. “Federal question” jurisdiction refers to the federal district court’s original 

jurisdiction over all civil actions which arise under the Constitution or federal law. See 28 

U.S.C. § 1331. If federal question jurisdiction is established, the federal district court may 

also assert “supplemental” jurisdiction over related state law claims. See 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1367. “Diversity” jurisdiction requires that (1) the amount in controversy exceed 

$75,000, and (2) parties be citizens of different states. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). When neither 

of these forms of jurisdiction apply, a case must be brought in state court not federal court.

Miroyan’s complaint does not clearly identify the grounds for the court’s 

jurisdiction. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires all complaints to provide “a 

short and plain statement of the grounds for the court’s jurisdiction.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). 

Thus, Miroyan must show cause why his case should not be dismissed for lack of subject 

matter jurisdiction. Miroyan must file his response by August 9, 2019, or the Court will 

recommend dismissal of this lawsuit.

The Court directs Miroyan to the Federal Pro Se Program, which provides free 

information and limited-scope legal advice to pro se litigants in federal civil cases. The 

Federal Pro Se Program is located in Room 2070 in the San Jose United States Courthouse, 

and is available by appointment Monday to Thursday 9:00 a.m.–4:00 p.m. The Program 

can also be reached by calling (408) 297-1480.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 18, 2019 _____________________________________

NATHANAEL M. COUSINS

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:19-cv-03626-NC Document 8 Filed 07/18/19 Page 2 of 2