Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-04170/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-04170-4/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Mauricio Rodriguez Borrego
Counter-claimant
John E. Hill
Counter-claimant
Law Offices of John E. Hill
Counter-claimant
David Replogle
Counter-defendant

Document Text:

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAVID REPLOGLE,

Plaintiff,

 v.

MAURICIO RODRIGUEZ BORREGO;

JOHN E. HILL; and the LAW OFFICES OF

JOHN E. HILL, APC,

Defendants. /

No. C 07-04170 CRB

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE:

SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION

This lawsuit involves a dispute among attorneys representing plaintiffs in another

action before this Court, Roe v. White, 03-4035 CRB, in which final judgment has been

entered. The amended complaint in this action makes a single state law claim for

interference with contract and seeks a temporary restraining order and preliminary

injunction, although plaintiff has not moved for such relief. Now pending before the Court is

the motion of the Hill defendants to dismiss for failure to state a claim.

A district court is obliged to sua sponte raise questions of its subject matter

jurisdiction. Williams v. United Airlines, Inc., 500 F.3d 1019, 1021 (9th Cir. 2007). The

consent of the parties to the court’s jurisdiction is irrelevant. Id. Plaintiff’s complaint raises

an issue as to federal jurisdiction of this action.

Case 3:07-cv-04170-CRB Document 21 Filed 11/28/07 Page 1 of 3
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

The state law complaint makes a claim against Mauricio Rodriguez Borrego, an alien,

and John E. Hill, a California citizen as is plaintiff; as a consequence, there is no diversity

jurisdiction. The complaint nonetheless alleges jurisdiction as follows:

This court has ancillary jurisdiction over this proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 1367 in that this proceeding is factually related to the case of Jose Roe I, et

al. v. Thomas F. White, et al., Case Number 03-4035-CRB pending before this

court.

First Amended Complaint ¶ 1. This allegation does not establish subject matter jurisdiction.

The statute upon which plaintiff relies, 28 U.S.C. section 1367, provides for

“supplemental jurisdiction” not ancillary jurisdiction. Under the statute, a district court has

supplemental jurisdiction “over all other claims that are so related to claims in the action

within such original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy under

Article III of the United States Constitution.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) (emphasis added). This

statute clearly contemplates that the supplemental claims are set forth in the action in which

the federal claims (the claims within the court’s original jurisdiction) are made. Here, of

course, plaintiff has filed a separate action. More fundamentally, however, plaintiff has not

established, and the Court’s review of the Amended Complaint suggests that plaintiff cannot

establish, that his interference with contract claim against Hill is so related to the federal

sexual tourism claims in Roe v. White, 03-4035 CRB that they “form part of the same case or

controversy under Article III.” See Federal Sav. and Loan Ins. Corp. v. Ferrante, 364 F.3d

1037, 1039 (9th Cir. 2004).

As plaintiff has the burden of proving this Court’s jurisdiction of his complaint,

Thompson v. McCombe, 99 F.3d 352, 353 (9th Cir. 1996), plaintiff is ordered to demonstrate

that this Court has subject matter jurisdiction. Plaintiff shall file his written submission, with

citation to appropriate legal authorities, on or before December 14, 2007. Defendants’

response, if any, shall be filed on or before December 21, 2007. The Court will take the

matter under submission at that time. In the meantime, the hearing on the Hill defendants’ 

//

//

Case 3:07-cv-04170-CRB Document 21 Filed 11/28/07 Page 2 of 3
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

G:\CRBALL\2007\4170\orderrejurisdiction.wpd 3

motion to dismiss is vacated.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: Nov. 28, 2007 

CHARLES R. BREYER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:07-cv-04170-CRB Document 21 Filed 11/28/07 Page 3 of 3