Ogunniyi v. Comnavsea

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 OGUNNIYI, VICTOR Case No.: 22-CV-32 TWR (MDD) (TBP)/COMMSOLGLOBAL LLC, 12 ORDER (1) DENYING MOTION Plaintiff, 13 FOR RECONSIDERATION, v. (2) DISMISSING ACTION 14 WITHOUT PREJUDICE US NAVY/COMNAVSEA/VADM W. J. 15 GALINIS, (ECF No. 12) 16 Defendants. 17 18 Presently before the Court is Plaintiff Victor Ogunniyi’s response to the Court’s 19 Order to Show Cause. (“Response,” ECF No. 12.) After carefully considering the 20 Complaint, Plaintiff’s Response, and the relevant law, the Court DISMISSES WITHOUT 21 PREJUDICE this action for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and DENIES AS MOOT 22 Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration. 23 BACKGROUND 24 The Court incorporates the factual and procedural background from the Court’s 25 August 25, 2022 Order. (See ECF No. 11 at 2.) 26 / / / 27 / / / 28 / / / 1 ANALYSIS 2 I. Subject-Matter Jurisdiction 3 As Plaintiff concedes, (see Resp. at 10), “federal courts are courts of limited 4 jurisdiction” and “possess only that power authorized by Constitution and statute.” 5 Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). Despite Plaintiff’s 6 assertion that “justice” and “truth” are “universal . . . and must be treated in any Federal 7 Court,” subject-matter jurisdiction is not a waivable or malleable requirement. On the 8 contrary, “if the court determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the 9 court must dismiss the action.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). 10 “The Plaintiff’s understanding is that the Federal Claims Court has exclusive 11 jurisdiction over contract claims great than $10,000 against the government.” (Resp. at 12 11.) Plaintiff’s understanding is correct. Plaintiff, however, continues that “there should 13 be no reason why this Honorable Court should not . . . play a significant role.” (Id.) But 14 as Plaintiff himself initially (and correctly) recognized, the jurisdiction in the Federal Court 15 of Claims “exclusive.” (Id. (emphasis added).) Accordingly, this Court does not have 16 jurisdiction to rule on any part of this case—including Plaintiff’s request that the Court 17 rule on “the fact that this Plaintiff has the privity of contract” and thus is a “Third Party 18 Beneficiary.” (Id.) Indeed, those issues should have been—and were—properly raised on 19 appeal rather than before this Court. See Ogunniyi v. United States, 655 F. App'x 842 (Fed. 20 Cir. 2016). 21 Therefore, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1491 this Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction 22 and thus DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE this action.1 Although dismissal of 23 Plaintiff’s action for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction is necessarily without prejudice, 24 see Hernandez v. Conriv Realty Assocs., 182 F.3d 121, 123 (2d Cir. 1999) (“Article III 25 26 27 1 Plaintiff included a section addressing why this action was not barred by the statute of limitations. (See Resp. at 12–13.) Because the Court does not have subject-matter jurisdiction over the case, see supra 28 1 || deprives federal courts of the power to dismiss a case with prejudice where federal subject 2 matter jurisdiction does not exist.”), Plaintiff SHALL NOT REFILE this action in this 3 || District. Motion to “Revisit and Reconsider Opinion” 5 Plaintiff requests that that Court reconsider its previous ruling to vacate the prior 6 || entry of default against Defendants, which was based on Plaintiff's failure properly to serve 7 ||Defendants. (See generally Resp.) In light of the Court’s dismissal of this action for lack 8 subject-matter jurisdiction, the Court DENIES AS MOOT Plaintiff's request for 9 || reconsideration. 10 CONCLUSION 11 In light of the foregoing, the Court DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE 12 || Plaintiff's Complaint and DENIES AS MOOT Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration. 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. 14 ||Dated: September 14, 2022 15 [ odd (2 re 16 Honorable Todd W. Robinson United States District Judge 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28