Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-00006/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-00006-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1346 Tort Claim

---

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

Thereafter, on September 11, 2007, plaintiff filed a new complaint, re-alleging the

same negligence claim against the United States. See Wesley v. United States, C 07-4685

MMC. On November 16, 2007, both the instant action and the action filed by plaintiff on

September 11, 2007 were reassigned to the undersigned.

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CAROLYN WESLEY,

Plaintiff,

 v.

DICK, MORGANTI, NIBBI, JV, THE UNITED

STATES OF AMERICA, and DOES 1 TO

100,

Defendants /

No. C-07-0006 MMC

ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO

SHOW CAUSE WHY ACTION SHOULD

NOT BE DISMISSED

On January 3, 2007, plaintiff filed the instant action, alleging a negligence claim

arising from an accident occurring on January 5, 2003, against two named defendants:

(1) Dick, Morganti, Nibbi, JV, and (2) the United States. On March 21, 2007, plaintiff

voluntarily dismissed without prejudice her claims against the United States. On July 5,

2007, plaintiff voluntarily dismissed without prejudice her claims against Dick, Morganti,

Nibbi, JV.1 Although no named defendant remains in the instant action, plaintiff asserts the

instant action remains properly before the Court in light of plaintiff’s having alleged claims

against “Doe” defendants. (See Pl.’s Case Management Conference Statement, filed

Case 3:07-cv-00006-MMC Document 30 Filed 11/27/07 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

27

28

2

October 5, 2007, ¶ 5.)

The only basis for jurisdiction alleged by plaintiff is the existence of a federal

question, specifically, plaintiff’s claim against the United States, (see Compl. ¶ 1); plaintiff

fails to expressly allege any basis for jurisdiction over her claims against the “Doe”

defendants. Because plaintiff cannot establish the existence of diversity jurisdiction over a

claim against a “Doe” defendant, see Garter-Bare Co. v. Munsingwear, Inc., 650 F. 2d 975,

981 (9th Cir. 1980) (holding inclusion of “Doe” defendant “destroys” diversity), it would

appear the only possible remaining basis for jurisdiction over plaintiff’s claims against the

“Doe” defendants would be supplemental jurisdiction. The Court, however, declines to

exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any claim against a “Doe” defendant, in light of the

March 21, 2007 dismissal of the sole federal claim alleged herein. See 28 U.S.C.

§ 1367(c)(3).

Accordingly, plaintiff is hereby DIRECTED to show cause, in writing and no later

than December 7, 2007, why the remaining claims in the instant action should not be

dismissed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 27, 2007 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-00006-MMC Document 30 Filed 11/27/07 Page 2 of 2