Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cv-00109/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cv-00109-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 710
Nature of Suit: Fair Labor Standards Act
Cause of Action: 15:5(a) Fair Labor Standards 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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SARA CATARINA REIS SANTOS

 Plaintiff,

v.

CHARLES REIS IV, et al., 

Defendant. 

No. 1:20-cv-00109-LJO-SKO

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THIS 

CASE SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR 

LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER 

JURISDICTION; AND 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THIS 

CERTAIN DEFENDANTS SHOULD NOT 

BE DISMISSED FOR MISJOINDER 

FOURTEEN DAY DEADLINE

(Doc. 1)

Plaintiff Sara Catarina Reis Santos, appearing pro se, filed a complaint on January 21, 

2020. (Doc. 1). From the court’s initial review of the complaint, it appears that the court lacks 

subject matter jurisdiction to consider the claims presented.

Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and lack inherent or general subject matter 

jurisdiction. Federal courts can adjudicate only those cases which the United States Constitution 

and Congress authorize them to adjudicate. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 511 U.S. 375 

(1994). To proceed in federal court, a plaintiff’s pleading must establish the existence of subject 

matter jurisdiction. Generally, there are two potential bases for federal subject matter 

jurisdiction: (1) federal question jurisdiction, or (2) diversity jurisdiction. 

/////

Case 1:20-cv-00109-DAD-SKO Document 7 Filed 02/21/20 Page 1 of 4
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

“[A] case ‘arises under’ federal law either where federal law creates the cause of action or 

‘where the vindication of a right under state law necessarily turn[s] on some construction of 

federal law.’” Republican Party of Guam v. Gutierrez, 277 F.3d 1086, 1088–89 (9th Cir. 2002) 

(quoting Franchise Tax Bd. v. Construction Laborers Vacation Trust, 463 U.S. 1, 8–9 (1983)). 

The presence or absence of federal question jurisdiction is governed by the “well-pleaded 

complaint rule.” Caterpillar, Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987). Under the well-pleaded 

complaint rule, “federal jurisdiction exists only when a federal question is presented on the face 

of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.” Id. 

Here, plaintiff has not checked either jurisdictional option (“federal question” or 

“diversity”) on her complaint form. (Doc. No. 1 at 3.) Moreover, the complaint does not appear 

to contain any allegation of a violation arising under the Constitution, federal law, or treaties of 

the United States. Instead, plaintiff appears to be asserting claims of wrongful termination 

against two separate employers, Taco Bell and Livingston Community Health, on independent 

occasions. (Id. at 1.) The complaint and its incorporated attachments suggest plaintiff was 

terminated from (or her employment otherwise ended at) Taco Bell in Livingstone, California on 

April 1, 2016, after plaintiff complained about sanitary issues in the restroom facilities there. 

(See id. at 9–11.) The complaint separately asserts that Livingston Community Health 

wrongfully terminated plaintiff on May 19, 2018, in retaliation for her voicing complaints about, 

among other things, how Livingstone Community Health handled walk-in patients. (See id. at 

18–27.) In the section of the standard complaint form that inquires as to the basis for federal 

question jurisdiction, plaintiff mentions a “law enforcement record by [National Labor Relations 

Board (NLRB)] Case 32-CA-205510.” (Id. at 4.) Apart from this, it is entirely unclear how her 

claims arise under federal law. While the NLRB is a federal agency, plaintiff fails to identify or 

even suggest what federal law any of her claims arise under.

Alternatively, under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, federal district courts have original jurisdiction over 

civil actions in diversity cases “where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of 

$75,000” and where the matter is between “citizens of different states.” 28 U.S.C. § 1332. 

“Subject matter jurisdiction based upon diversity of citizenship requires that no defendant have 

Case 1:20-cv-00109-DAD-SKO Document 7 Filed 02/21/20 Page 2 of 4
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

the same citizenship as any plaintiff.” Tosco Corp. v. Communities for a Better Env’t, 236 F.3d 

495, 499 (9th Cir. 2001), abrogated on other grounds by Hertz Corp. v. Friend, 559 U.S. 77

(2010). “A plaintiff suing in federal court must show in his pleading, affirmatively and distinctly, 

the existence of whatever is essential to federal jurisdiction, and, if he does not do so, the court . . 

. on discovering the [defect], must dismiss the case, unless the defect be corrected by 

amendment.” Id. (quoting Smith v. McCullough, 270 U.S. 456 (1926)); see also Kanter v. 

Warner-Lambert Co., 265 F.3d 853, 857-858 (9th Cir. 2001) (“the party asserting diversity 

jurisdiction bears the burden of proof.”). 

Plaintiff’s complaint alleges that plaintiff and at least one defendant are residents of 

California (see Doc. 1 at 1–2), which destroys the requisite complete diversity in this case. See 

Cook v. AVI Casino Enterprises, Inc., 548 F.3d 718, 722 (9th Cir. 2008) (citing Caterpillar, Inc. 

v. Lewis, 519 U.S. 61, 68 (1996) (stating that diversity jurisdiction requires “complete diversity of 

citizenship”)).

This Court has an independent duty to consider its own subject matter jurisdiction, whether 

or not the issue is raised by the parties and must dismiss an action over which it lacks jurisdiction. 

See Morongo Band of Mission Indians v. Cal. State Bd. of Equalization, 858 F.2d 1376, 1380 (9th 

Cir. 1988); Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3); see also Cal. Diversified Promotions, Inc. v. Musick, 505 F.2d 

278, 280 (9th Cir. 1974) (“It has long been held that a judge can dismiss sua sponte for lack of 

jurisdiction.”). Here, it appears that the court would lack subject matter jurisdiction over the claims 

in the complaint. Therefore, plaintiff is ORDERED to SHOW CAUSE why this case should 

not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The court CAUTIONS plaintiff that, if 

she fails to respond to the jurisdictional concerns raised above within fourteen (14) days of the date 

of service of this Order, the court will dismiss the entire complaint.

In addition, plaintiff appears to have joined two wholly independent wrongful termination 

claims into a single lawsuit. According to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20(a)(2), a plaintiff 

may permissively join defendants in a single action only if (1) the plaintiff is asserting a right to 

relief against the defendants “jointly, severally, or in the alternative with respect to or arising out 

of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences,” and (2) the claims 

Case 1:20-cv-00109-DAD-SKO Document 7 Filed 02/21/20 Page 3 of 4
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

involve a “question of law or fact common to all defendants.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a)(2). Though 

improper joinder is not grounds for dismissal of an action, a court may on its own motion drop 

improperly joined parties or sever improperly joined claims. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 21. Accordingly, 

plaintiff is also ORDERED to SHOW CAUSE why the Court should not dismiss one of the 

named defendants for improper joinder. Therefore, even if plaintiff is able to establish subject 

matter jurisdiction over one or more claims in this case, plaintiff is CAUTIONED that if she fails 

to respond to the above concerns regarding joinder within fourteen (14) days of the date of 

service of this Order, the court will dismiss the defendants other than the first named defendant: 

Taco Bell. 

Plaintiff shall file a written response to the above orders to show cause within fourteen (14)

days of this Order. Alternatively, plaintiff may elect to file a notice of dismissal of this action 

instead of filing a response to this Order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 20, 2020 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:20-cv-00109-DAD-SKO Document 7 Filed 02/21/20 Page 4 of 4