Court Opinion

ID: 9914601
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-02 17:00:37.125291+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:14:11.025850
License: Public Domain

FILED
                           NOT FOR PUBLICATION
                                                                             JAN 2 2024
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                          U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

                            FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

PROJECT FOR OPEN GOVERNMENT,                     No.   22-55901

              Plaintiff-Appellant,               DC No. 3:22-cv-00067-AJB-MDD

 v.
                                                 MEMORANDUM*
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO,

              Defendant-Appellee.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Southern District of California
                   Anthony J. Battaglia, District Judge, Presiding

                          Submitted December 12, 2023**
                              Pasadena, California

Before:      TASHIMA, GRABER, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.

      Plaintiff Project for Open Government filed a complaint in state court

against Defendant County of San Diego, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief

against a rule adopted by the San Diego County Board of Supervisors, which was

      *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
      **
            The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without
oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2)(C).
aimed at curbing disruptive, hostile discourse at Board meetings. The case was

removed to federal court. The district court dismissed the complaint without leave

to amend under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim

as to the federal claim and remanded the remaining state law claim to San Diego

County Superior Court.

      The complaint’s allegations do not establish Article III standing because

Plaintiff has not alleged that it “has suffered, or be[en] threatened with, an actual

injury traceable to the defendant [that is] likely to be redressed by a favorable

judicial decision.” Protectmarriage.com-Yes on 8 v. Bowen, 752 F.3d 827, 834

(9th Cir. 2014) (second alteration in original) (quoting Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S.

1, 7 (1998)). Because there was no federal jurisdiction, we conclude that the

matter should have been remanded to state court. Polo v. Innoventions Int’l, LLC,

833 F.3d 1193, 1194–96 (9th Cir. 2016). Because the district court lacked subject

matter jurisdiction, we vacate the district court’s 12(b)(6) dismissal and remand

with instructions to remand the case to state court.

      Plaintiff’s motion to strike Defendant’s supplemental excerpts of record

[Dkt. 29], is denied as moot.

      VACATED and REMANDED with directions.

                                           2