Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-05508/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-05508-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 370
Nature of Suit: Other Fraud
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

 With respect to the former citation, plaintiff may have intended to refer to 49 C.F.R. § 392.9,

a regulation promulgated under the federal Motor Carrier Act. The latter citation does not refer to any

existing statute or regulation.

2

See Saul v. United States, 928 F.2d 829, 843 (9th Cir. 1991).

The Court has reviewed plaintiff’s proposed FAC and concludes that permitting plaintiff to

amend his complaint to assert claims giving rise to federal jurisdiction would be futile. The proposed

FAC simply cites a list of federal statutes, namely 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c) (RICO), 18 U.S.C. § 1001 (false

statements), 31 U.S.C. § 3729 (False Claims Act), 18 U.S.C. § 1341 (mail fraud), and 18 U.S.C. § 1343

(wire fraud), without offering sufficient factual allegations in support of any of these proposed causes

of action. In addition, the proposed FAC cites to two nonexistent sections of the United States Code,

49 U.S.C. §§ 392.9 and 390.2.1.2

 

Accordingly, the Court concludes that permitting amendment of plaintiff’s complaint to add the

aforementioned federal claims would be futile, and DENIES the motion for leave to file an FAC (Docket

No. 23). Because there is still no basis for federal jurisdiction, the Court’s prior dismissal of this action

remains in effect. An amended judgment, reflecting this order, will be issued.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 20, 2010 

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:09-cv-05508-SI Document 25 Filed 03/20/10 Page 1 of 1