Opinion
21-cv-03063-EMC
08-04-2021
TATYANA EVGENIEVNA DREVALEVA, Plaintiff, v. DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al., Defendants.
ORDER DISMISSING CASE WITH PREJUDICE
DOCKET NO. 2
EDWARD M. CHEN, United States District Judge
Previously, Judge Spero granted Plaintiff Tatyana Drevaleva's motion to proceed in forma pauperis but did not address the sufficiency of her complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). The Court now conducts that review. It finds that dismissal is proper based on lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
In her petition, Ms. Drevaleva asks the Court to order the California Labor Commissioner to take certain action pursuant to California Labor Code § 98.7. See, e.g., Cal. Lab. Code § 98.7(c)(1) (providing that, “[i]f the Labor Commissioner determines a violation has occurred, the Labor Commissioner may issue a determination”; that, “[i]f the Labor Commissioner issues a determination, the commissioner shall notify the complainant and respondent and direct the respondent to cease and desist”; and that, “[i]f the respondent does not comply . . ., the Labor Commissioner shall bring an action promptly in an appropriate court against the respondent”). There is neither federal question nor diversity jurisdiction over this claim.
As with another case that Ms. Drevaleva filed (No. C-21-3061 EMC), Ms. Drevaleva cites a litany of federal statutes in her petition but she does not explain how any of these are applicable to her claim against the Department of Industrial Relations and/or the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement.
Accordingly, the Court dismisses Ms. Drevaleva's case with prejudice. The Clerk of the Court is instructed to enter a final judgment and close the file in this case.
This order disposes of Docket No. 2.
IT IS SO ORDERED