Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-02984/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-02984-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Other Civil Rights

---

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 Pursuant to Civ. L. R. 7-13, this order shall notbe cited exceptas provided by Civ.

L. R. 3-4(e). 

2 The court finds this motion appropriate for decision without oral argument as

permitted by Civil L.R. 7-1(b) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 78. See also Lake at Las Vegas Investors

Group, Inc. v. Pacific Malibu Dev. Corp., 933 F.2d 724, 729 (9th Cir. 1991) (holding that the

court's considerationof the moving and oppositionpapers is deemed anadequate substitute for

a formal hearing), cert. denied, 503 U.S. 920 (1992). Accordingly, the September 14, 2005

hearing date is hereby VACATED.

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

NOT FOR CITATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHELANGELO DELFINO, et al.,

Plaintiffs, No. C 05-2984 PJH

v. ORDER GRANTING IN PART 

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS;

SUSAN BENJAMIN FELCH, et al., AND REMANDING CASE

Defendants.

_______________________________/

Before this court are defendants Felch and Zdasiuk’s motion to dismiss and motion to

strike.1 Having read the papers and carefully considered the relevant legal authority, the court

hereby GRANTS IN PART the motion to dismiss and sua sponte REMANDS the case, for the

reasons that follow.2

BACKGROUND

In February 1999, defendants Felch, Zdasiuk, and two other people sued the pro per

plaintiffs in this action, Delfino and Day, in state court (hereinafter referred to as “the

underlying suit”). Felch, Zdasiuk, Delfino, and Day were former co-workers at Varian

Associates, Inc., and Delfino was fired for allegedly harassing Felch. In the underlying suit,

Felch and Zdasiuk alleged that Delfino and Day defamed them and Varian in Internet chat

groups. 
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

2

Felch and Zdasiuk prevailed in the underlying suit at trial and on appeal, but in March

2005, the California Supreme Court reversed, finding that the trial should have been stayed

while the denial of Delfino and Day’s anti-SLAPP motion was on appeal and thus the trial

court had no jurisdiction over the trial of the underlying case. Delfino and Day’s anti-SLAPP

motion has since been denied, and the state court case remanded for retrial.

Delfino and Day (hereinafter, “Plaintiffs”) then filed this lawsuit in San Mateo County

Superior Court, alleging: malicious prosecution (pled as “wrongful use of civil proceedings”),

abuse of process, intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligent infliction of emotional

distress, intentional interference with prospective economic relations, conspiracy to harm

plaintiffs, and violation of their federal civil rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Felch and

Zdasiuk (hereinafter, “Defendants”) then removed the case to this court and now move for its

dismissal. 

DISCUSSION

A. Legal Standard

A court should dismiss a claim under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim

only where it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of the

claim which would entitle the plaintiff to relief. See, e.g., Broam v. Brogan, 320 F.3d 1023,

1033 (9th Cir. 2003) (citations omitted). In evaluating a motion to dismiss, all allegations of

material fact are taken as true and construed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving

party. See, e.g., Burgert v. Lokelani Bernice Pauahi Bishop Trust, 200 F.3d 661, 663 (9th Cir.

2000) (citations omitted).

B. § 1983 Claim

The only federal cause of action pled arises under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and provides the

basis for the removal of the case to this court. Plaintiffs claim that their constitutional rights

were violated because the defendants conspired with Judge Whyte in the Northern District of

California and Judge Komar, “each of whom was acting in their capacity as government

officials and in the performance of their official duties to enforce unconstitutional prior restraint
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

and injunctive relief that was overly, content based, and included non-parties.” Neither judge is

named as a defendant in the complaint.

However, a § 1983 claim cannot be premised on judicial action, because judicial

action alone is not state action for the purposes of a § 1983 claim. Schucker v. Rockwood,

846 F.2d 1202, 1204-05 (9th Cir. 1988) (“the mere invocation of state judicial process does

not convert a private party’s action into state action even if the plaintiff alleges a ‘conspiracy’

between the private parties and the judge.”). Plaintiffs readily admit that the judges’ decisions

are the only basis for their § 1983 claim against defendants. See Opp. Br. at 16 (“Plaintiffs’

claim is merely a vehicle whereby Plaintiffs challenge the actions of certain misguided judges

and ascribe liability to Felch and Zdasiuk and their conspirators to deprive Plaintiffs their

constitutional rights.”). Thus, the § 1983 claim fails as a matter of law, and its premise is such

that it would be futile to grant plaintiffs leave to amend. See, e.g., Steckman v. Hart Brewing,

Inc., 143 F.3d 1293, 1298 (9th Cir. 1998). The § 1983 claim is thus DISMISSED with

prejudice. 

C. Sua Sponte Remand

Here, the parties are not diverse, see Complaint ¶¶ 3-5, so the only basis for subject

matter jurisdiction in this court is federal question. With the dismissal of the § 1983 claim,

there are no other federal questions pending. 

Defendants claim in their notice of removal that plaintiffs, have alleged, in addition to

the § 1983 claim, violations of their First Amendment rights in the context of their state law

claims. A federal court, however, has jurisdiction over “only those cases in which a wellpleaded complaint establishes either that federal law creates the cause of action or that the

plaintiff’s right to relief necessarily depends on resolution of a substantial question of federal

law.” Franchise Tax Board v. Construction Laborers Vacation Trust, 463 U.S. 1, 27-28

(1983). Here, the plaintiffs do not in fact plead any First Amendment causes of action in the

complaint, and their alleged right to relief under the state law causes of action do not depend

on the resolution of any First Amendment questions. There is thus no federal subject
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

4

jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims in the complaint. 

A court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims and sua

sponte remand a case if no independent basis for subject matter jurisdiction exists after the

dismissal of the federal claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c); CarnegieMellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350-51 (1988). But cf. Kelton Arms Condo. Owners

Ass’n, Inc v. Homestead Insurance Co., 346 F.3d 1190, 1992 (9th Cir. 2003) (waivable

defects in removal, unlike lack of subject matter jurisdiction, may not be dismissed sua

sponte). Thus, this court declines to reach the merits of the remainder of the arguments in the

motion to dismiss or the special motion to strike pursuant to the anti-SLAPP statute, and the

case is sua sponte REMANDED to San Mateo County Superior Court.

This order fully adjudicates the matter listed at nos. 8 and 11, and all other pending

matters on the clerk’s docket for this case. The clerk shall close the file. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 9, 2005

______________________________

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge