Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-00579/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-00579-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 290
Nature of Suit: Other Real Property Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1331bc Fed. Question: Breach of Contract

---

1

18-CV-579 CAB KSC

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARTHA ROJAS and ROGER ROJAS,

Plaintiff,

v.

YGRENE ENERGY FUND, INC. et al.,

Defendant.

Case No.: 18-CV-579 CAB KSC

DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE 

FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER 

JURISDICTION

This matter is before the Court on an order to show cause as to subject matter 

jurisdiction. The complaint alleges federal question jurisdiction based solely on a claim 

for violation of Title 16, section 429.1, of the Code of Federal Regulations, and 

supplemental jurisdiction over the eight state law claims. However, “[t]o acquire federal 

jurisdiction, a plaintiff must assert a colorable right to a remedy under a particular federal 

statute.” Carlson v. Coca-Cola Co., 483 F.2d 279, 280 (9th Cir. 1973). Title 16, section 

429.1, of the Code of Federal Regulations was promulgated pursuant to the Federal Trade 

Commission Act (the “FTCA”). See Part 429--Cooling-Off Period for Door-to-Door Sales: 

Promulgation of Trade Regulations Rule and Statement of Its Basis and Purpose, 37 Fed. 

Reg. 22934-35 (Oct. 26, 1972). The FTCA does not create a private right of action. 

Carlson, 483 F.2d at 280; O’Donnell v. Bank of Am., Nat’l Ass’n, 504 Fed. Appx. 566, 568 

(9th Cir. 2013) (“[T]he Federal Trade Commission Act . . . doesn’t create a private right of 

action.”); 5 McCarthy on Trademarks and Unfair Competition § 27:119 (5th ed.) (“While 

it has often been argued that a private right to sue for a violation of the FTC Act’s 

prohibitions should be implied, the courts have consistently held that there is no such 

Case 3:18-cv-00579-CAB-KSC Document 7 Filed 04/10/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 2
2

18-CV-579 CAB KSC

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

private right to sue. That is, only the FTC, as a federal agency, has the power to issue cease 

and desist orders, obtain civil penalties, or file suit for violation of the FTC Act.”). Thus, 

“it follows that there is no private right of action to enforce the FTC’s promulgated 16 

C.F.R. § 429.1.” Howard v. Burleson Servs., Inc., No. 616CV300ORL18TBS, 2017 WL 

1862212, at *2 (M.D. Fla. May 8, 2017). If there is no private right of action to enforce 16 

C.F.R. § 429.1, Plaintiffs have not asserted a colorable right to a remedy under a federal 

statute, meaning the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this lawsuit.

In their response to the Court’s order to show cause, Plaintiffs fail to cite to any 

federal court cases holding that consumers have a private right of action under 16 C.F.R. § 

429.1 or the FTCA in general. That regulations enacted pursuant to the FTCA provide 

benefits or rights to consumers does not necessarily mean that consumers have a right to 

sue to enforce such regulations, regardless of whether the relief sought is equitable or 

monetary. Only the FTC has the power to file suit for violation of those regulations. See

5 McCarthy on Trademarks and Unfair Competition § 27:119 (5th ed.).

In sum, there is no private right of action to sue for violation of the FTC Act. This 

prohibition includes regulations promulgated pursuant to the FTC Act. Plaintiffs cite to no 

authority to the contrary. Plaintiffs first claim for violation of 16 C.F.R. § 429.1, therefore, 

does not assert a colorable right to a remedy obtainable by Plaintiffs via this lawsuit and 

cannot serve as a basis for federal question subject matter jurisdiction. Because Plaintiffs 

do not assert any other federal claims and because the lack of diversity between Defendants 

and Plaintiffs precludes the exercise of diversity jurisdiction, the Court lacks subject matter 

jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ complaint. Accordingly, the complaint is DISMISSED 

WITHOUT PREJUDICE to refiling in state court.

It is SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 10, 2018

Case 3:18-cv-00579-CAB-KSC Document 7 Filed 04/10/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2