Opinion
Civ. No. 09-1353-AA.
July 6, 2010
ORDER
Defendant filed a motion to dismiss on April 27, 2010 alleging lack of subject matter jurisdcition. Plaintiff's response was due by May 11, 2010. To date, nearly two months later, plaintiff, who is represented by counsel, has failed to file any opposition or response to defendant's motion. The court will therefore consider defendant's motion unopposed.
Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1), defendant's motion is granted. Plaintiff's Amended Complaint contains general factual allegations regarding age, gender, and mental disability discrimination, but fails to set forth any causes of action or any legal basis for any claims. The Amended Complaint also fails to state whether plaintiff is asserting claims under state and/or federal law. Plaintiff has the burden at all times of establishing subject matter jurisdiction. Thornhill Publishing Co. v. General Tel. Elec. Corp., 594 F.2d 730, 733 (9th Cir. 1979). For a federal court to have subject matter jurisdiciton, plaintiff must either assert a federal question or seek diversity jurisediciton. See 28 U.S.C. ¶¶ 1331, 1332. When, as here, neither federal question nor diversity jurisdiction exist based on the face of the complaint (or Amended Complaint), the court is without subject matter jurisdiciton to hear the matter and the case must be dismissed.
Defendant's motion to dismiss (doc. 11) is granted and all pending motions are denied as moot.
IT IS SO ORDERED.