Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-01626/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-01626-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 29:754 Discrimination

---

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 - 06CV1626 WQH (LSP)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TINA HELANDER, a.k.a. TINA KINSTOF,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 06CV1626 WQH (LSP)

ORDER DISMISSING CASE FOR

LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER

JURISDICTION

vs.

DR. ANDY HOANG, PACIFIC DENTAL

SERVICES, ESCONDIDO DENTAL

GROUP, and DOES 1-100,

Defendants.

HAYES, Judge:

Pending before the Court is Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s First Amended

Complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. (Doc. # 24). The Court finds the matter suitable for

submission on the papers and without oral argument pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7.1(d)(1).

BACKGROUND & DISCUSSION

On August 11, 2006, Plaintiff filed the original Complaint in this matter, asserting federal and

state claims for wrongful termination. (Doc. # 1). On October 2, 2006, Defendants moved to dismiss

and strike the Complaint, (Docs. # 4, 5), and on January 23, 2007, this Court dismissed the federal

cause of action for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. (Doc. # 20). The Court

declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims. (Doc. # 20). 

On February 23, 2007, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint seeking damages for tortious

termination in violation of state law. (Doc. # 22). The First Amended Complaint does not include a

Case 3:06-cv-01626-WQH-LSP Document 29 Filed 04/24/07 Page 1 of 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

- 2 - 06CV1626 WQH (LSP)

short and plain statement of its jurisdictional basis, and it does not mention subject matter jurisdiction.

(Doc. # 22). On February 27, 2007, the Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause as to why the First

Amended Complaint should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction (Doc. # 23), and

on March 2, 2007, Defendants moved to dismiss on jurisdictional grounds. (Doc. # 24). On March

19, 2007, Plaintiff filed a response to the order to show cause, and indicated that she wished to re-file

her case in state court and did not object to dismissal of this federal court action. (Doc. # 26).

Unlike state courts, federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. See U.S. Const. art. III,

§ 2. Federal courts “possess only that power authorized by the Constitution and statute,” Kokkonen

v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994), and are “required sua sponte to examine

jurisdictional issues.” Bernhardt v. County of Los Angeles, 279 F.3d 862, 868 (9th Cir. 2002).

Plaintiff has the burden of demonstrating the basis for this Court’s subject matter jurisdiction.

Kokkonen, 511 U.S. at 377; Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Thompson, 478 U.S. 804, 810

(1986).

After reviewing the First Amended Complaint and the parties briefing on subject matter

jurisdiction, the Court concludes that it does not have subject matter jurisdiction over this suit. The

First Amended Complaint does not include a short plain statement of the basis for jurisdiction as

required by FED. R. CIV. P. 8(a)(1), and Plaintiff did not put forth evidence indicating subject matter

jurisdiction after the Court’s order to show cause and Defendants’ motion to dismiss. The Court

cannot identify a discernable basis for subject matter jurisdiction. Accordingly, Defendants’ motion

to dismiss is GRANTED (Doc. # 24), and this case is dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: April 24, 2007

WILLIAM Q. HAYES

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-01626-WQH-LSP Document 29 Filed 04/24/07 Page 2 of 2