Walsh v. California Energy Development Inc.

District Court, S.D. California · 3:22-cv-00449 · 2023-02-15 · Unknown

Proceeding: district
Area: civil
Panel: Jinsook Ohta (author)

Analysis

A model's reading — qwen3.8-27b, prompt own-v1, 2026-10-13T22:08Z · confidence high

The court reviewed a civil complaint that alleged a violation of a federal criminal statute (18 U.S.C. § 1344) as the sole basis for federal question jurisdiction. The court dismissed the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because the plaintiff failed to respond to an order to show cause and the cited statute does not provide a private right of action.

What the court decided	The model
Dismissal of the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction “Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES this action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.”	agree with court The court correctly identified that 18 U.S.C. § 1344 is a criminal statute that does not create a private right of action for civil damages. Without a valid federal claim, the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. The dismissal is procedurally supported by the plaintiff's failure to respond to the order to show cause, which serves as a default on the jurisdictional challenge.

What the court decided

The model

Dismissal of the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction

“Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES this action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.”

agree with court
The court correctly identified that 18 U.S.C. § 1344 is a criminal statute that does not create a private right of action for civil damages. Without a valid federal claim, the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. The dismissal is procedurally supported by the plaintiff's failure to respond to the order to show cause, which serves as a default on the jurisdictional challenge.

The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly identifies the jurisdictional defect (lack of a private right of action under the cited criminal statute) and relies on the plaintiff's failure to respond to the order to show cause to finalize the dismissal. The reasoning is concise but legally sufficient for a district court order of this nature.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

inconsistent with cited authority

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 DR. JOHN J. WALSH, Case No.: 22cv449-JO-BGS 11 Plaintiff, ORDER DISMISSING ACTION 12 v. 13 CALIFORNIA ENERGY DEVELOPMENT INC., et. al., 14 Defendants. 15 16 Plaintiff filed his complaint in this action on April 5, 2022. Dkt. 1. Plaintiff pleaded 17 federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. See id. The only federal claim 18 brought by Plaintiff, however, was criminal statute 18 U.S.C.A. § 1344, which does not 19 provide for a private right of action by a civil plaintiff. See, e.g., Brumbaugh v. Comerica 20 Bank, 2008 WL 11337490, at *4 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 27, 2008). Accordingly, on October 18, 21 2022, the Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause why this action should not be dismissed 22 for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See Dkt. 4.1 Plaintiff was warned that failure to 23 comply with the order to show cause would result in the dismissal of the action. See id. 24 25 26 27 1 The Court also ordered Plaintiff to show cause why the action should not be dismissed for failure to serve the summons and complaint within 90 days after filing the complaint, as required by Federal Rule 28 1 Plaintiff’s written response to the above order to show cause was due by November 2 16, 2022. As of February 15, 2023, Plaintiff has still not filed a response to the Court’s 3 order. Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES this action for lack of subject matter 4 jurisdiction. The Clerk shall enter judgment accordingly. 5 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 Dated: February 15, 2023 8 ____________________ 9 Hon. Jinsook Ohta United States District Court 10 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28