JAREN D. JONES v. CAM THUY QUANG TRAN, et al.
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Cathy Ann Bencivengo (author)
Analysis
The court denied pending motions to dismiss as moot following the filing of a First Amended Complaint and vacated the briefing schedule. The court ordered the plaintiff to show cause regarding subject matter jurisdiction by March 31, 2026, due to apparent lack of complete diversity.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Deny motions to dismiss as moot“The Court therefore DENIES AS MOOT the pending motions to dismiss based on the original Complaint, [Doc. Nos. 11, 12, 15]” | agree with court When a plaintiff files an amended complaint that supersedes the original complaint, pending motions to dismiss the original complaint are generally considered moot because the court is no longer reviewing the document that was the subject of the motion. This is a standard procedural outcome. |
Vacate current briefing schedule“and VACATES the related briefing schedule, [Doc. No. 17].” | agree with court Since the motions to dismiss were denied as moot, the briefing schedule associated with those motions is no longer relevant and is properly vacated. |
Require plaintiff to show cause regarding jurisdiction“Plaintiff is therefore ordered to show cause by March 31, 2026, the basis for subject matter jurisdiction in this case.” | agree with court The court has the authority to raise subject matter jurisdiction sua sponte at any time. The First Amended Complaint alleges diversity jurisdiction but lists defendants with addresses in California and identifies the plaintiff as a California citizen, suggesting a lack of complete diversity. Ordering the plaintiff to show cause is a procedural mechanism to resolve this jurisdictional defect before dismissing the case. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly identifies that the filing of the First Amended Complaint renders the prior motions to dismiss moot. It correctly cites the authority for the court's power to raise subject matter jurisdiction sua sponte and notes the apparent lack of complete diversity based on the allegations in the FAC. The decision to order a show cause hearing rather than immediate dismissal is a reasonable procedural step to allow the plaintiff to clarify or cure the jurisdictional defect.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JAREN D. JONES, Case No.: 3:24-cv-2032-CAB-MMP 12 Plaintiff, ORDER: 13 v. (1) DENYING MOTIONS TO DISMISS AS MOOT [Doc. Nos. 11, 12, 14 CAM THUY QUANG TRAN, et al., 15]; 15 Defendants. (2) VACATING CURRENT BRIEFING SCHEDULE [Doc. No. 16 17]; and 17 (3) REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO SHOW CAUSE REGARDING 18 JURISDICTION. 19 20 21 On March 18, 2026, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint with revised 22 defendants and claims. [Doc. No. 18 (“FAC”).] The Court therefore DENIES AS MOOT 23 the pending motions to dismiss based on the original Complaint, [Doc. Nos. 11, 12, 15], 24 and VACATES the related briefing schedule, [Doc. No. 17]. 25 The Court may consider the issue of subject matter jurisdiction sua sponte at any 26 time during the proceeding, and if the Court finds it lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the 27 Court must dismiss the action. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3); Scholastic Ent., Inc. v. Fox Ent. 28 Grp., Inc., 336 F.3d 982, 985 (9th Cir. 2003). 1 The FAC alleges diversity jurisdiction as the basis for this Court’s jurisdiction. 2 ||[Doc. No. 18 at 5.] However, it appears that Plaintiff and several of the named Defendants 3 ||are citizens of California. [/d. at 4 (naming “Kaiser Foundation Health Plan Inc., Kaiser 4 || Foundation Hospitals, and Southern California Permanente Medical Group” as Defendants 5 || with an address in Pasadena, California), and 5 (identifying Plaintiff as a California 6 || citizen).] The FAC thus indicates that complete diversity is lacking. In the absence of 7 ||complete diversity or federal question jurisdiction, federal courts are without power to 8 || adjudicate a case. Owens Equip. & Erection Co. v. Kroger, 437 U.S. 365, 377 (2006). 9 Plaintiff is therefore ordered to show cause by March 31, 2026, the basis for subject 10 || matter jurisdiction in this case. If Plaintiff does not respond to this order by March 31, 11 ||2026, this case shall be dismissed without prejudice for improper subject matter 12 jurisdiction, allowing Plaintiff to refile in the appropriate court. 13 Itis SO ORDERED. 14 Dated: March 19, 2026 € 15 Hon. Cathy Ann Bencivengo 16 United States District Judge 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28