Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-01215/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-01215-4/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Vern Jenkins
Defendant
River Rock Casino
Defendant
Alvin Taylor
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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 All parties have consented to the jurisdiction of a

magistrate judge, pursuant to U.S.C. § 636(c) for all

proceedings, including entry of final judgment.

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ALVIN TAYLOR,

Plaintiff(s),

v.

RIVER ROCK CASINO, et al.,

Defendant(s).

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C07-1215 BZ

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’

MOTION TO DISMISS

Plaintiff Alvin Taylor brought this wrongful death action

against defendants River Rock Casino, Vern Jenkins, and

unnamed security guards of the River Rock Casino, alleging

that defendants negligently caused the death of plaintiff’s

wife.1

 Compl. ¶¶ 7-8. Defendants moved to dismiss the

complaint on the principal ground that it was barred by tribal

sovereign immunity. In reviewing the complaint, I noticed

that it did not contain a statement of the grounds upon which

the court’s jurisdiction depends as required by Rule 8(a). It

Case 3:07-cv-01215-BZ Document 22 Filed 07/10/07 Page 1 of 3
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

did not cite the jurisdictional statute plaintiff invoked. At

best it suggested plaintiff believes there is federal

jurisdiction because the tort occurred on an Indian

reservation and at least some of the defendants are Indians. 

I then raised the issue of subject matter jurisdiction sua

sponte and ordered each side to address this issue in a future

filing. Plaintiff did not file a surreply as ordered. 

Defendants argued that this court has “federal question”

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Section 1331, because plaintiff’s

complaint alleges that defendants have waived sovereign

immunity. See Compl. ¶ 5; Defs.’ Reply at 12-13. 

Defendants’ argument flies in the face of the “wellpleaded complaint rule”, which requires federal jurisdiction

to appear on the face of a properly pleaded complaint. 

Caterpillar, Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987). 

Federal jurisdiction cannot rest on the anticipation of a

federal defense. Id. at 393. In Oklahoma Tax Commission v.

Graham, the Supreme Court ruled that subject matter

jurisdiction was lacking where the Chickasaw Nation removed a

complaint seeking to collect unpaid taxes even though it

intended to assert its immunity from suit. Federal

jurisdiction “is not affected by the fact that tribal immunity

is governed by federal law,” because the presence “of a

federal immunity to the claims asserted does not convert a

suit otherwise arising under state law into one which, in the

statutory sense, arises under federal law.” 489 U.S. 838, 841

(1989); see also Niagara Mohawk Power Corp. v. Tonawanda Band

of Seneca Indians, 862 F. Supp. 995, 1000 (W.D.N.Y.

Case 3:07-cv-01215-BZ Document 22 Filed 07/10/07 Page 2 of 3
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

3

1994)(dismissing a complaint filed against Indian tribe for

lack of subject matter jurisdiction). 

Because plaintiff’s complaint alleges only a non-federal

tort action, and merely anticipates a defense of sovereign

immunity, it fails to meet the “arising under” standard

required for Section 1331 jurisdiction. Neither party has

suggested any other basis for jurisdiction, and I know of

none. Without subject matter jurisdiction, this Court cannot

continue to hear this case. For these reasons defendants’

motion is GRANTED, and plaintiff’s complaint is DISMISSED. 

Dated: July 10, 2007

Bernard Zimmerman 

 United States Magistrate Judge

g:\bzall\-bzcases\taylor v. river rock casino\order granting dismissal mot.bzversion.

Case 3:07-cv-01215-BZ Document 22 Filed 07/10/07 Page 3 of 3