The opinion of the court was delivered by: United States District Judge Dean D. Pregerson
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THIS CASE SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION
Plaintiff Manuel Quintana is ordered to show cause why this action should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Plaintiff filed a complaint on November 27, 2012, alleging breach of contract, implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and fiduciary duty, as well as fraud and deceit. His Complaint asserts that this court has federal question jurisdiction over his "contractual claims" and supplemental jurisdiction over his state law claims. (Compl. ¶ 8.) He does not appear to assert diversity jurisdiction.
Under 28 U.S.C.A. § 1331, "[t]he district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States." "Under the longstanding well-pleaded complaint rule, however, a suit 'arises under' federal law only when the plaintiff's statement of his own cause of action shows that it is based upon federal law." Vaden v. Discover Bank, 556 U.S. 49, 60 (2009) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
Here, the Complaint makes reference to the Truth in Lending Act ("TILA"), 15 U.S.C. §§ 1601 et seq.. (See, e.g. Compl. ¶ 1(c).) However, it does not make any claims under the TILA per se; all claims appear to be state law causes of action. (See Compl. Causes of Action One Through Five.) It is not clear to the court that any of Plaintiff's claims in fact arise under federal law.
Accordingly, the court orders Plaintiff to file a brief, not to exceed five pages, by Thursday, March 14, 2013, showing cause why this action should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Plaintiff should also deliver a courtesy copy to chambers, Room 244-J, Second Floor, 312 N. Spring Street, Los Angeles. The court will regard any failure to file an explanatory brief as consent to dismiss this matter.
© 1992-2013 VersusLaw ...