Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01724/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01724-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question: Personal Injury

---

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

TERRY NICKS, No. CIV.S-06-1724 GEB DAD PS

Plaintiff,

v. ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

COMPUSA and AMERICAN HOME

ASSURANCE,

Defendants.

____________________________/

Plaintiff, proceeding in this action pro se, initiated the

above-entitled action by paying the appropriate filing fee and filing

a complaint on August 4, 2006. Plaintiff filed an amended complaint

on August 14, 2006. This proceeding was referred to this court by

Local Rule 72-302(c)(21), pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

Plaintiff’s amended complaint reflects that she is seeking

recovery from her former employer and its workers’ compensation

insurance carrier due to physical injuries sustained while working. 

Although difficult to decipher, the amended complaint mentions

Case 2:06-cv-01724-GEB-DAD Document 5 Filed 08/16/06 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

workers’ compensation proceedings and prays for workers’ compensation

disability benefits. No basis for federal jurisdiciton is alleged. 

Indeed, to the extent that plaintiff seeks to litigate her workers’

compensation case, her exclusive remedy would appear to be through

California’s workers' compensation system. See Jensen v. Amgen,

Inc., 105 Cal. App. 4th 1322, 1325 (2003)(“An employee injured during

the course of employment is generally limited to remedies available

under the Workers' Compensation Act.”). The state’s Workers'

Compensation Act provides an exclusive remedy for an employee injured

in the course of employment. Cal. Lab. Code § 3602(a).

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff shall show cause in writing within twenty

days of the date that this order is filed why the court should not

dismiss this action with prejudice on the grounds that plaintiff’s

claims of personal injury incurred in the scope of employment are

preempted by the California Workers' Compensation Act. See Fed. R.

Civ. P. 12(h)(3)(“Whenever it appears by suggestion of the parties or

otherwise that the court lacks jurisdiction of the subject matter,

the court shall dismiss the action.”); and

2. Plaintiff is forewarned that the failure to timely

comply with the terms of this order will result in a recommendation

that this action be dismissed.

DATED: August 15, 2006.

DAD:th

Ddadl\orders.prose\nicks1724.osc

Case 2:06-cv-01724-GEB-DAD Document 5 Filed 08/16/06 Page 2 of 2