Sanchez v. Barret, Daffin, Frappier, Turner & Engel, LLP.
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Cathy Ann Bencivengo (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed an amended complaint in which plaintiffs added the California Attorney General as a defendant to support federal jurisdiction for a due process claim. The court dismissed the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, finding the new allegations conclusory and the damages claim barred by sovereign immunity, while granting plaintiffs one final opportunity to amend.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Dismissal of the operative complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction“The Court again dismisses the operative complaint under Rule 12(b)(1).” | agree with court The court correctly identifies that the sole new allegation against the state actor is conclusory and fails to state a claim. Furthermore, the court correctly applies the Eleventh Amendment to bar the damages claim against the official-capacity defendant. Because the federal claim is insubstantial and the only state actor is immune from the requested relief, the court is correct to find that the federal claim was made solely to obtain jurisdiction, thus depriving the court of subject matter jurisdiction under the *Bell v. Hood* doctrine. |
Granting of leave to amend the complaint“The Court will give Plaintiffs an additional, final opportunity to amend their complaint.” | agree with court While the court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, it granted leave to amend. This is a discretionary procedural decision. Given the court's warning that further attempts to manufacture jurisdiction will result in dismissal with prejudice, granting one final chance is a reasonable exercise of discretion to ensure the record is fully developed before a final, with-prejudice dismissal. |
The order itself: sound — The order is logically consistent and applies the correct legal standards. It correctly identifies the failure to plead non-conclusory facts against the state actor and correctly applies sovereign immunity to the damages claim. The use of *Bell v. Hood* to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction based on a frivolous federal claim is the appropriate procedural mechanism when the federal claim is the sole basis for jurisdiction and is insubstantial.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RUBEN SANCHEZ, et al., Case No.: 3:25-cv-00870-CAB-AHG 12 Plaintiffs, ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT 13 v. [Doc. No. 4] 14 BDF LAW GROUP, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 On April 14, 2024, Plaintiffs filed a complaint alleging a single due process violation 18 against several Defendants who were clearly not state actors. [Doc. No. 1.] In that 19 complaint, Plaintiffs alleged that the Court’s jurisdiction was based on a proper federal 20 question. The Court dismissed that complaint for want of subject matter jurisdiction since 21 there was no alleged state action to sustain a constitutional claim. [Doc. No. 3.] 22 In their amended complaint, Plaintiffs have added the Attorney General of California 23 as a Defendant to this case. The sole allegation is that the Attorney General discriminated 24 against Plaintiffs on account of their national origin. [FAC ¶ 29.] This allegation is entirely 25 conclusory. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. 26 Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)) (“Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of 27 action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.”) 28 l Moreover, any claim for damages against the Attorney General, who appears to be 2 ||sued in his official capacity, is barred by sovereign immunity. See Aholelei v. Dep't of 3 || Public Safety, 488 F.3d 1144, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007) (“The Eleventh Amendment bars suits 4 ||for money damages in federal court against a state, its agencies, and state officials acting 5 || in their official capacities.”). The other relief requested has nothing to do with any alleged 6 || discrimination by the Attorney General. The Court again dismisses the operative complaint 7 |}under Rule 12(b)(1). See Bell v. Hood, 327 U.S. 678, 682-683 (1946) (“[A] suit may 8 ||sometimes be dismissed for want of jurisdiction where the alleged claim under the 9 || Constitution or federal statutes clearly appears to be immaterial and made solely for the 10 ||purpose of obtaining jurisdiction or where such a claim is wholly insubstantial and 11 || frivolous.”). 12 The Court will give Plaintiffs an additional, final opportunity to amend their 13 |}complaint. Plaintiffs are reminded that the Court may dismiss a case on 12(b)(1) grounds 14 ||sua sponte. Snell v. Cleveland, Inc., 316 F.3d 822, 826 (9th Cir. 2002). Should Plaintiffs 15 |/continue to assert federal claims to manufacture jurisdiction, the Court will dismiss this 16 with prejudice. Plaintiffs have until April 30, 2025 to file an amended complaint. 17 ©; g 18 ||Dated: April 16, 2025 Hon. Cathy Ann Bencivengo 19 United States District Judge 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28