Opinion ID: 3033220
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The District Court’s Dismissal of the Action

Text: GIAA filed three motions to dismiss before the district court: (1) for failure to name the proper defendant and join an indispensable party; (2) for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction; and (3) for unsuitability of declaratory relief. The district court’s April 1, 2003 order addressed all three motions. The court agreed with GIAA that the proper defendant was GIAA’s Board of Directors, and not the Executive Manager of GIAA, but held that pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 15(a) and 19(a), appellant could amend his complaint to name the Board.5 The motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction was double-barreled. GIAA first argued that the case should be dismissed for lack of a federal question. The district court distinguished the case relied upon by GIAA, Republican Party of Guam v. Gutierrez, 277 F.3d 1086 (9th Cir. 2002), and held that there was federal-question jurisdiction.6 4 Our affirmance of the dismissal of appellant’s action renders moot his challenge on appeal to the March 28, 2003 ruling. 5 The court noted, however, that amendment was not necessary as it was dismissing the complaint on other grounds. 6