Opinion
CV 21-7330-DMG (GJSx)
09-09-2022
Darnell Hicks v. Floyd S. Bradford III, et al.
KANE TIEN
KANE TIEN
CIVIL MINUTES-GENERAL
PRESENT: THE HONORABLE DOLLY M. GEE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Proceedings: IN CHAMBERS-ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THIS ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION
Plaintiff Darnell Hicks filed this action in this Court on September 13, 2021. [Doc. # 1.] In the operative First Amended Complaint (“FAC”), filed on January 12, 2022, Hicks asserts claims against Defendants the State of California, Facebook, Inc., Twitter, Inc., Floyd Bradford III, Elizabeth Stump, Miles Cheong, and the Lakewood California Regional Crime Awareness, Prevention, & Safety Group. [Doc. # 10.] He asserts claims for violation of his Fourteenth Amendment rights under 42 U.S.C. section 1983 against the State of California, a claim for violation of California's Consumer Privacy Act, Cal. Civ. Code § 1789.100, against Facebook, Inc., and Twitter, Inc., and claims under California's Bane Civil Rights Act, Cal. Civ. Code § 52.1, Ralph Civil Rights Act, Cal. Civ. Code § 51.7, and for defamation, false light, and invasion of privacy against all Defendants.
On May 24, 2022, Hicks voluntarily dismissed the State of California [Doc. # 38] and Cheong [Doc. # 39]. On May 26, 2022, Hicks voluntarily dismissed Twitter, Inc. [Doc. # 40.]
Stump has filed an answer [Doc. # 55], Facebook, Inc. has moved to dismiss the FAC [Doc. # 42], and Bradford has filed an answer and an anti-SLAPP motion to strike [Doc. ## 60, 64].
Although Hicks did not subsequently amend his complaint, in dismissing the State of California, Hicks appears to have dismissed his claims under Section 1983. In his FAC, Hicks invokes this Court's federal question jurisdiction. See FAC ¶ 2. But in light of Hicks's dismissal of his federal claims, federal question jurisdiction no longer exists. Moreover, Hicks asserts in his FAC that he, Bradford, and Stump all reside in California, and that Facebook has its principal place of business in California. It therefore appears that diversity jurisdiction does not lie. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) (providing for diversity jurisdiction over civil actions between citizens of different states).
“Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and, as such, cannot exercise jurisdiction without constitutional and statutory authorization.” Hansen v. Grp. Health Coop., 902 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir. 2018). There no longer appears to be a basis for this Court's jurisdiction. Hicks is therefore ORDERED to show cause why this action should not be dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Hicks shall file his response no later than September 16, 2022. Failure to file a satisfactory response will result in the dismissal of this action, without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.