Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-03555/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-03555-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract

---

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

 This action proceeds before the undersigned pursuant to Eastern District of California 1

Local Rule 302(c)(21) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), and was reassigned by an order entered

February 9, 2010 (Dkt. No. 5).

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOHN ZAPATA dba ZAPATA

COLLECTION, SERVICE, an Individual,

Plaintiff, No. 2:09-cv-03555 GEB KJN PS

v. ORDER

FLINTCO, INC., an Oklahoma

corporation, SAN JOAQUIN DELTA 

COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT, 

a Political Subdivision and JOHN DOE 

1-25, inclusive,

Defendants. 

 /

On May 20, 2010, this case was before the undersigned for a status (pretrial

scheduling) conference. Plaintiff, who is proceeding without an attorney, appeared on his own 1

behalf. Attorney Jason Suh appeared on behalf of both defendants. As a result of the contentions

regarding the court’s subject matter jurisdiction contained in the Joint Status Report filed by the

parties (Dkt. No. 23), and for the reasons discussed at the status conference, the undersigned will

not enter a status (pretrial scheduling) order at this time and, instead, will enter such an order

Case 2:09-cv-03555-GEB -KJN Document 29 Filed 05/21/10 Page 1 of 5
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

after the court has resolved whether it has subject matter jurisdiction to hear this case.

This dispute arises out of defendant San Joaquin Delta Community College

District’s (the “District”) call for competitive bidding for the construction of a public project

consisting of the renovation of the interior of the Goleman Learning Resource Center. (Pl.’s

Compl. ¶ 13, Dkt. No. 1.) Plaintiff, an individual, is the purported “assignee of all rights, title,

interest due to Midwest Demolition Company of California (Midwest), a California corporation,

and against all Defendants.” (Id. ¶ 6.) Generally, plaintiff alleges that defendant Flintco, Inc.

(“Flintco”), the successful prime contract bidder, initially listed Midwest on an authorized bid

form as a subcontractor to conduct certain demolition work in connection with the renovation

project. (Id. ¶ 15.) He further alleges that Flintco subsequently substituted another subcontractor

for Midwest to perform the demolition work at issue as a result of Midwest’s purported refusal to

enter into a subcontract with Flintco. (See id. ¶¶ 17-20.) 

Plaintiff’s complaint alleges two claims for relief: (1) “breach of duty not to

substitute subcontractor for listed subcontractor without proper consent,” which appears to be

alleged only against Flintco; and (2) violation of due process, alleged against the District. (Id.

¶¶ 12-36.) Plaintiff seeks damages in the amount of $348,031.00, costs, collection fees, and

attorney’s fees. (Dkt. No. 1 at 8.) 

Plaintiff has alleged that this court has subject matter jurisdiction to hear this case

pursuant to the diversity jurisdiction statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1332. (Pl.’s Compl. ¶ 1.) Although

defendants have already filed an answer to plaintiff’s complaint, defendants have indicated that

they intend to challenge the court’s subject matter jurisdiction. Defendants contend that the

assignment from Midwest to plaintiff is a “sham”; that Midwest, a California corporation, is the

proper plaintiff in this action; and that there can be no complete diversity if Midwest is indeed a

proper plaintiff because the “District is a California entity.” (See Joint Status Report at 2:17-22,

Dkt. No. 24.) Defendants have also indicated that they intend to challenge whether plaintiff, an

individual, may properly represent Midwest, which defendants believe is a proper party here and

Case 2:09-cv-03555-GEB -KJN Document 29 Filed 05/21/10 Page 2 of 5
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

 See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3); Augustine v. United States, 704 F.2d 1074, 1075 n.3 (9th 2

Cir. 1983) (characterizing a post-answer motion brought pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) as

“technically untimely,” but concluding that the government’s motion was properly before the

court as “a Rule 12(h)(3) suggestion of lack of subject matter jurisdiction”); accord Elvig v.

Calvin Presbyterian Church, 375 F.3d 951, 956 n.2 (9th Cir. 2004). 

3

is a corporation that may only appear in federal court through an attorney (id. at 4). See, e.g.,

Local Rule 183(a). 

Because the court has an independent obligation to assess its subject matter

jurisdiction, Bova v. City of Medford, 564 F.3d 1093, 1095 (9th Cir. 2009), the court declines to

enter a status (pretrial scheduling) order at this time and will do so only after the dispute

regarding the court’s subject matter jurisdiction has been resolved. As described below, the court

will permit defendants to conduct limited discovery, including the taking of a limited deposition

of plaintiff, and will permit defendants to file a motion challenging the court’s subject matter

jurisdiction. And because plaintiff has indicated that he will be out of the country from 2

approximately June 18, 2010 through the middle of August of 2010, the undersigned will set a

schedule for the taking of limited discovery and a limited deposition of plaintiff, and will set a

briefing schedule for defendants’ motion, if any, related to the matters discussed herein. The

parties are strongly encouraged to cooperate with a view toward completing the discovery and

briefing permitted herein on an expedited basis and moving this case forward.

For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Defendants will be permitted to conduct limited discovery, consistent with

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and applicable law, regarding whether the court has subject

matter jurisdiction over this case and whether plaintiff may represent a corporate entity, which

might be a proper party in this matter, in federal court. This may include discovery regarding the

“assignment” from Midwest Demolition Company of California to plaintiff in this case and the

nature of plaintiff’s relationship to, or affiliation with, Midwest Demolition Company of

California and/or Midwest Demolition Company. However, Defendants are cautioned that,

Case 2:09-cv-03555-GEB -KJN Document 29 Filed 05/21/10 Page 3 of 5
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

 Although defendants requested a shortening of time within which plaintiff would be 3

obligated to respond to discovery propounded by defendants, the undersigned advised the parties

that, at least initially, they would be expected to cooperatively address the timing of responses to

such discovery. 

4

consistent with the undersigned’s admonition at the status conference, such discovery shall be

limited in nature. 

2. Defendants may serve written discovery limited to the issues described

above and consistent with the discussion at the status conference. Such written discovery shall

be served and responded to, if at all possible, before June 17, 2010. Additionally, if defendants 3

determine that the taking of plaintiff’s deposition—limited to the issues described above and

discussed at the status conference—is required, they may take plaintiff’s deposition. Any such

limited deposition shall take place on or before June 17, 2010, in either Los Angeles or

Sacramento, California, or an alternative location within the State of California that is agreeable

to both parties.

3. If defendants are not able to complete the permitted, limited discovery on

on or before June 17, 2010, they shall file a written statement with the court describing the efforts

made, and the reasons for the failure, to complete the discovery permitted herein.

4. All discovery in this case, except as described above, is stayed until such

time as the court has resolved the dispute regarding its subject matter jurisdiction over this case.

5. Defendants shall file a motion, if any, challenging the court’s subject

matter jurisdiction and/or challenging plaintiff’s ability to represent a corporate party in federal

court within sixty (60) days of the date of entry of this order. If defendants decide not to file such

a motion, they shall promptly notify the court in writing and serve such notice on plaintiff. If

defendants file such a motion, plaintiff shall have thirty (30) days to file a written opposition or

statement of non-opposition. Plaintiff may file and serve such written opposition or statement of

non-opposition electronically in .pdf format if needed, and shall contact the undersigned’s

courtroom deputy, Casey Schultz, in advance of the filing deadline to arrange for timely

Case 2:09-cv-03555-GEB -KJN Document 29 Filed 05/21/10 Page 4 of 5
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

5

electronic filing. Defendants shall then have seven (7) days to file an optional written reply. The

court will set a hearing date if it determines that a hearing is required. 

6. Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment filed May 20, 2010 (Dkt. No.

27), is dismissed without prejudice to refiling after the court has resolved the dispute regarding

whether it has subject matter jurisdiction to hear this case. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: May 20, 2010

_____________________________________

KENDALL J. NEWMAN

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:09-cv-03555-GEB -KJN Document 29 Filed 05/21/10 Page 5 of 5