Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-02841/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-02841-7/pdf.json

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

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

XIUFANG SITU, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

MICHAEL O. LEAVITT,

Defendant.

NO. C06-2841 TEH 

ORDER REQUIRING

SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFS AND

ORDER CONTINUING MOTION

HEARINGS

This matter comes before the Court on Defendant’s motion to dismiss, as well as on

Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification and Defendant’s motion for a stay on discovery. 

After reviewing the parties’ briefs on the motion to dismiss, the Court has found the parties’

discussion of the relevant standard of review to be incomplete. Plaintiffs appear to be under

the mistaken assumption that Defendant’s motion is brought under Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim rather than under Rule 12(b)(1) for lack of

jurisdiction; either that, or Plaintiffs have simply misunderstood the proper standard of

review. For example, Plaintiffs state that “[a]lthough CMS [the Centers for Medicare and

Medicaid Services] asserts that Mr. Ellis has not been charged more than a $3 co-pay for his

prescriptions, this is not relevant for purposes of this motion since the facts as alleged in the

Complaint must be presumed true.” Opp’n at 6 n.5 (emphasis added).

While that statement may be correct for Rule 12(b)(6) motions, it does not reflect the

correct standard for reviewing a Rule 12(b)(1) motion. The Ninth Circuit has explained the

standard for reviewing jurisdictional challenges as follows:

A district court may hear evidence and make findings of fact

necessary to rule on the subject matter jurisdiction question prior to

trial, if the jurisdictional facts are not intertwined with the merits. In

such circumstances, no presumption of truthfulness attaches to the

plaintiff’s allegations. However, if the jurisdictional issue and

substantive claims are so intertwined that resolution of the 

Case 3:06-cv-02841-TEH Document 42 Filed 08/17/06 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

1

Alternatively, of course, Plaintiffs could attempt to stipulate to dismissal of the

challenged plaintiffs and substitution of other plaintiffs with Defendant. Plaintiffs may also

request jurisdictional discovery “unless it is clear that further discovery would not

demonstrate facts sufficient to constitute a basis for jurisdiction.” Laub v. U.S. Dep’t of the

Interior, 342 F.3d 1080, 1093 (9th Cir. 2003) (citations omitted).

2

jurisdictional question is dependent on factual issues going to the

merits, the district court should employ the standard applicable to a

motion for summary judgment and grant the motion to dismiss for

lack of jurisdiction only if the material jurisdictional facts are not in

dispute and the moving party is entitled to prevail as a matter of law. 

Otherwise, the intertwined jurisdictional facts must be resolved at

trial by the trier of fact.

Rosales v. United States, 824 F.2d 799, 803 (9th Cir. 1987) (citations omitted); see also

Roberts v. Corrothers, 812 F.2d 1173, 1177 (9th Cir. 1987) (where jurisdictional and

substantive issues are intertwined, “the district court assumes the truth of allegations in a

complaint or habeas petition, unless controverted by undisputed facts in the record”). Thus,

even though it appears that the jurisdictional issues raised in Defendant’s motion are

intertwined with the merits of this case, it is insufficient for Plaintiffs to rely on the

allegations in the complaint to rebut Defendant’s evidence regarding elements of standing

because, simply put, an allegation is not evidence that would be considered at summary

judgment.

It appears from statements in Plaintiffs’ opposition, as well as from the allegations in

the complaint, that Plaintiffs may be able to present evidence going to the elements of

standing, which they mistakenly believed they did not need to submit at this stage of the

proceedings. Although the Court could well have granted parts of Defendant’s motion based

on Plaintiffs’ failure to raise a material factual dispute on these elements, the Court will

instead permit the parties to file supplemental briefs applying the correct standard of review

to allow full consideration of the merits of Defendant’s motion.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiffs shall file a supplemental brief, of no more than eight pages, addressing

Defendant’s standing arguments in light of the above standard on or before Monday,

August 28, 2006.1

Case 3:06-cv-02841-TEH Document 42 Filed 08/17/06 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

3

2. Defendant shall file a supplemental reply brief, also of no more than eight pages,

on or before Wednesday, September 6, 2006.

3. The hearings on Defendant’s motion to dismiss and Plaintiffs’ motion for class

certification shall be continued to Monday, September 25, 2006, at 10:00 AM.

4. The hearing on Defendant’s motion for a stay on discovery shall continue to be

held on Monday, August 28, 2006, at 10:00 AM.

5. The case management conference currently scheduled for August 28 shall be

vacated. The Court will set a new case management conference date after all pending

motions have been resolved. There is no need to have a case management conference while

the motion to dismiss and motion for class certification remain pending.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 08/17/06 

THELTON E. HENDERSON, JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case 3:06-cv-02841-TEH Document 42 Filed 08/17/06 Page 3 of 3