Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_24-cv-02748/USCOURTS-caed-2_24-cv-02748-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Cache Creek Casino Resort
Defendant
Barbara Ratcliffe
Plaintiff
Yocha Dehe Wintun Nation
Defendant

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

----oo0oo----

BARBARA RATCLIFFE,

Plaintiff,

v.

YOCHA DEHE WINTUN NATION d/b/a 

CACHE CREEK CASINO RESORT,

Defendant.

No. 2:24-cv-02748 WBS CSK

ORDER RE: DEFENDANT’S MOTION 

TO DISMISS1

----oo0oo----

Plaintiff Barbara Ratcliffe brought this action against 

defendant Yocha Dehe Wintun Nation, doing business as Cache Creek 

Casino Resort, alleging employment discrimination and wrongful 

termination under California law. (Docket No. 1.) Defendant now 

moves to dismiss the action for lack of subject matter

jurisdiction. (Docket No. 4.) Plaintiff has not filed any 

opposition to the motion and the time to do so has passed. See

1 The motion is decided on the papers without oral 

argument pursuant to Local Rule 230. The scheduled January 6, 

2025 hearing on the motion is hereby VACATED.

Case 2:24-cv-02748-WBS-CSK Document 6 Filed 12/12/24 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

L.R. 230(c).

Federal courts have original jurisdiction over actions 

arising under federal law. 28 U.S.C. § 1331. This action does 

not arise under federal law, as plaintiff brings only California 

state law claims. (See Docket No. 1.)

Federal courts also have original jurisdiction over 

cases where complete diversity exists between the parties and the 

amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). 

“[U]nincorporated Indian tribes cannot sue or be sued in 

diversity because they are not citizens of any state.” Am. 

Vantage Cos. v. Table Mountain Rancheria, 292 F.3d 1091, 1095 

(9th Cir. 2002). Accordingly, this court cannot exercise 

diversity jurisdiction over defendant. 

Because neither federal question nor diversity 

jurisdiction is present, plaintiff has not met her burden of 

demonstrating that the court has subject matter jurisdiction, see

Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 

(1994).

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that defendant’s motion to 

dismiss (Docket No. 4) be, and the same hereby is, GRANTED. The 

Clerk of Court is directed to close this case.

Dated: December 12, 2024

Case 2:24-cv-02748-WBS-CSK Document 6 Filed 12/12/24 Page 2 of 2