Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-04047/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-04047-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
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

Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ALICE BROWN,

Plaintiff,

v.

WESTERN COMMUNICATIONS INC., 

et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 19-cv-04047-MMC 

ORDER DISMISSING FIRST 

AMENDED COMPLAINT

On July 15, 2019, plaintiff Alice Brown filed her complaint, by which pleading 

plaintiff asserted against defendants Western Communications, Inc., Del Norte Triplicate, 

and Robert Fornoff (“Fornoff”) claims for unlawful discrimination pursuant to Title II of the 

Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000a (“Title II”), and for violation of her rights under 

the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. That same day, plaintiff also filed 

an application to proceed in forma pauperis. Thereafter, by order filed July 19, 2019, the 

Court granted plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis and, having found 

plaintiff failed to state a claim under either Title II or the First Amendment, dismissed the 

complaint with leave to amend. 

Now before the Court is plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint (“FAC”), filed August 

8, 2019. Having read and considered the FAC, the Court rules as follows. 

Where, as here, a party proceeds in forma pauperis, the district court, pursuant to 

28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), must dismiss the complaint if the plaintiff “fails to state a claim on 

Case 3:19-cv-04047-MMC Document 7 Filed 08/28/19 Page 1 of 3
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

which relief may be granted.” See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). The Court considers 

herein whether the FAC is subject to dismissal for “fail[ure] to state a claim on which relief 

may be granted.” See id. 

In her FAC, plaintiff alleges, as she did in her original complaint, Fornoff “ordered 

[plaintiff] . . . out of his business” (see FAC ¶ 10) and “refused to allow her to purchase an 

ad in the newspaper” (see id. ¶ 12) after plaintiff, during a meeting, “asked Fornoff if he 

had a racial bias” (see id. ¶ 10). In her FAC, however, plaintiff no longer asserts any 

claims under federal law. Rather, relying solely on diversity jurisdiction as the basis for 

her “case belong[ing] in federal court” (see FAC ¶ 3), plaintiff now asserts a single state 

law claim for “discrimination/denial of service” (see id. at 5). For the reasons set forth 

below, the Court finds the FAC is subject to dismissal. 

At the outset, the Court finds plaintiff’s reliance on diversity jurisdiction is 

misplaced. Diversity jurisdiction exists where there is “complete diversity” among the 

parties, i.e., where the “citizenship of each plaintiff is diverse from the citizenship of each 

defendant.” See Caterpillar, Inc. v. Lewis, 519 U.S. 61, 68 (1996). Here, however, 

plaintiff alleges she and all defendants other than Western Communications, Inc., are 

citizens of California. (See FAC ¶¶ 1-2.) 

Next, although a federal court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a 

plaintiff’s state law claim where, as here, such claim and the federal claims asserted in

the original complaint “derive from a common nucleus of operative fact,” see Trs. of 

Constr. Indus. & Laborers Health & Welfare Tr. v. Desert Valley Landscape & Maint., Inc., 

333 F.3d 923, 925 (9th Cir. 2003) (internal quotation and citation omitted), the Court,

given the early stage of the proceedings, declines to do so, see Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. 

Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350 (1988) (holding “when the federal-law claims have dropped out 

of the lawsuit in its early stages and only state-law claims remain,” federal courts 

ordinarily “should decline the exercise of jurisdiction by dismissing the case without 

prejudice”). 

//

Case 3:19-cv-04047-MMC Document 7 Filed 08/28/19 Page 2 of 3
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Accordingly, the FAC is hereby DISMISSED without prejudice to refiling in state 

court. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 28, 2019 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:19-cv-04047-MMC Document 7 Filed 08/28/19 Page 3 of 3