Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00938/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00938-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 02:437 Federal Election Commission

---

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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GEORGE SALO,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-06-0938 WBS KJM PS

vs.

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION, et al., FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Defendants.

 /

Pending before the court are the motions to dismiss of defendants Federal

Election Commission (“FEC”) and 21st Century Insurance Company (“21st Century”). Upon

review of the documents in support and opposition, and good cause appearing therefor, THE

COURT FINDS AS FOLLOWS:

 Defendant FEC moves to dismiss on the ground this court lacks jurisdiction to

hear plaintiff’s claims against this defendant. Defendant FEC is correct. Assuming arguendo

that the complaint sufficiently alleges a claim against the FEC for failing to take action on

administrative complaints filed by plaintiff with the FEC, exclusive jurisdiction is vested in the

United States District Court for the District of Columbia. 2 U.S.C. § 437g(a)(8). As such, this

court lacks jurisdiction over any such claim. With respect to any other claim plaintiff may be

alleging against this defendant, there is no waiver of sovereign immunity either pled or evident

in the complaint. United States v. Mitchell, 463 U.S. 206, 212 (1983); FDIC v. Meyer, 510 U.S.

Case 2:06-cv-00938-WBS -KJM Document 70 Filed 04/26/07 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

2

471, 475 (1994). Defendant FEC should therefore be dismissed.

Defendant 21st Century moves to dismiss on the ground there is no intelligible

claim pled against this defendant. The gravamen of the complaint revolves around an alleged

conspiracy to harass plaintiff, covering a span of many years, which culminated in plaintiff’s

vehicle being towed by the City of Berkeley. The complaint thus is utterly devoid of any

cognizable claim against defendant 21st Century. Because it does not appear plaintiff can state

any claim against defendant 21st Century, the motion to dismiss should be granted.

This action was removed from state court under 28 U.S.C. § 1442 by defendant

Federal Election Commission. With the dismissal of this defendant, the remaining claims raise

no federal issues. Under 28 U.S.C § 1367, the court should decline to exercise supplemental

jurisdiction and remand the case to state court.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

1. The motions to dismiss of defendants Federal Election Commission and 21st

Century Insurance Company be granted.

2. This action be remanded to the Superior Court of California, County of

Solano.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within

twenty days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file

written objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be

captioned "Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations." Any reply to the

objections shall be served and filed within ten days after service of the objections. The parties

are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal

the District Court's order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: April 26, 2007. 

006/salo.57

Case 2:06-cv-00938-WBS -KJM Document 70 Filed 04/26/07 Page 2 of 2