Mike Schaefer v. American Broadcasting Company, Inc., et al.
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Robert Steven Huie (author)
Analysis
The court considered a motion to dismiss a pro se plaintiff's claim that broadcast media companies violated the equal time rule of the Communications Act. The court granted the motion, dismissing the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction without leave to amend, and denied the plaintiff's motion for an expedited hearing as moot.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 6) is granted.“Nextstar’s motion to dismiss [ECF No. 6] is therefore GRANTED.” | agree with court The court correctly identified that 47 U.S.C. § 315 does not provide a private right of action, meaning the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. The parties agreed on this point, and the court's reliance on *Williams v. United Airlines, Inc.* supports the conclusion that federal question jurisdiction is inapplicable when the statute does not create a right of action. |
Complaint is dismissed without leave to amend.“The Complaint is DISMISSED without leave to amend.” | agree with court The court denied leave to amend because the plaintiff failed to identify a state cause of action that could support diversity jurisdiction. Under *DeSoto v. Yellow Freight Sys.*, a court may deny leave to amend if the amendment would be futile. Since the plaintiff did not specify a viable state claim, the court's determination of futility is supported by the record. |
Dismissal is without prejudice.“Dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction without prejudice.” | agree with court Dismissals for lack of subject matter jurisdiction are generally without prejudice, allowing the plaintiff to refile if jurisdiction is later established (e.g., if a valid state claim emerges). The court's citation to *Missouri ex rel. Koster v. Harris* supports this procedural posture. |
Plaintiff's motion for an expedited hearing (ECF No. 4) is denied as moot.“In light of this disposition, Plaintiff's motion [ECF No. 4] for an expedited hearing the merits of the Complaint is DENIED as moot.” | agree with court Because the complaint was dismissed, there are no merits to hear. Denying the motion as moot is the standard procedural response. |
The order itself: sound — The order is concise and correctly applies the relevant legal standards. It accurately identifies the lack of a private right of action under 47 U.S.C. § 315, leading to a lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The denial of leave to amend is supported by the plaintiff's failure to identify a viable state claim for diversity jurisdiction, rendering amendment futile. The citations to Ninth Circuit precedent are appropriate and directly support the court's conclusions.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MIKE SCHAEFER, Case No.: 26-cv-1993-RSH-JLB 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S 13 v. MOTION TO DISMISS 14 AMERICAN BROADCASTING [ECF Nos. 4, 6] 15 COMPANY, INC., et al., 16 Defendants. 17 18 19 Plaintiff, a candidate for U.S. Congress, filed this lawsuit pro se on March 30, 2026 20 against several broadcast media companies, alleging that they denied him “equal time” in 21 violation of Section 315 of the Communications Act of 1934, 47 U.S.C. § 315. ECF No. 1. 22 On May 4, 2026, defendant Nexstar Media Inc. (“Nexstar”) moved to dismiss for 23 lack of jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim, on the grounds that Section 315 provides 24 an exclusive forum before the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) for alleging 25 violations of the equal time rule, and does not create a private right of action. ECF No. 6- 26 1 at 4-5. In response, Plaintiff agrees that his Complaint should be dismissed for lack of 27 jurisdiction, but requests leave to amend to file a claim based on diversity jurisdiction in 1 || the event he suffers damages in the future. ECF No. 10 at 1-2. Plaintiff also requests that 2 || any dismissal be without prejudice. /d. at 1. 3 The “general federal-question jurisdiction statute is applicable only when the 4 || plaintiff sues under a federal statute that creates a right of action in federal court.” Williams 5 || v. United Airlines, Inc., 500 F.3d 1019, 1021, 1022 (9th Cir. 2007) (affirming dismissal of 6 action “not on the merits but because the district court lacked jurisdiction”). The Parties 7 agree that there is no such jurisdiction here. Although Plaintiff raises the possibility of “re- 8 pleading in diversity jurisdiction if [events] give rise to interstate damages in excess of 9 ||$75,000,” ECF No. 10 at 2, he does not identify a state cause of action that would support 10 || diversity jurisdiction now or in the future. The Court concludes that leave to amend would 11 || be futile here. See DeSoto v. Yellow Freight Sys., 957 F.2d 655, 658 (9th Cir. 1992) (“A 12 || district court does not err in denying leave to amend where the amendment would be 13 || futile.”’). 14 Nextstar’s motion to dismiss [ECF No. 6] is therefore GRANTED. The Complaint 15 |}is DISMISSED without leave to amend. Dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction 16 without prejudice. See Missouri ex rel. Koster v. Harris, 847 F.3d 646, 656 (9th Cir. 17 |}2017). 18 In light of this disposition, Plaintiff's motion [ECF No. 4] for an expedited hearing 19 the merits of the Complaint is DENIED as moot. 20 The Clerk of Court is directed to close the case. 21 IT IS SO ORDERED. ‘ 22 Dated: June 2, 2026 S How 3 Hon. Robert S. Huie United States District Judge 24 25 26 27 28