Miquisha Straughter v. Macy's West Stores, Inc., 17-cv-01143 NC. (2017)
Court: District Court, N.D. California
Number: infdco20171017960
Visitors: 9
Filed: Oct. 16, 2017
Latest Update: Oct. 16, 2017
Summary: ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE REGARDING FEDERAL QUESTION JURISDICTION Re: Dkt. No.33 NATHANAEL M. COUSINS , Magistrate Judge . On October 11, 2017, the Court heard oral argument on Macy's motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Court took the matter under submission. In opposition to the motion to dismiss, Straughter repeatedly cited Proctor v. Vishay Intertechnology Inc., 584 F.3d 1208 , 1219 (9th Cir. 2009). Proctor cites Empire Healthchoice Assur., Inc. v. McVeigh,
Summary: ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE REGARDING FEDERAL QUESTION JURISDICTION Re: Dkt. No.33 NATHANAEL M. COUSINS , Magistrate Judge . On October 11, 2017, the Court heard oral argument on Macy's motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Court took the matter under submission. In opposition to the motion to dismiss, Straughter repeatedly cited Proctor v. Vishay Intertechnology Inc., 584 F.3d 1208 , 1219 (9th Cir. 2009). Proctor cites Empire Healthchoice Assur., Inc. v. McVeigh, 5..
More
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE REGARDING FEDERAL QUESTION JURISDICTION
Re: Dkt. No.33
NATHANAEL M. COUSINS, Magistrate Judge.
On October 11, 2017, the Court heard oral argument on Macy's motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Court took the matter under submission. In opposition to the motion to dismiss, Straughter repeatedly cited Proctor v. Vishay Intertechnology Inc., 584 F.3d 1208, 1219 (9th Cir. 2009). Proctor cites Empire Healthchoice Assur., Inc. v. McVeigh, 547 U.S. 677, 689-90 (2006). Empire's discussion of subject matter jurisdiction based on "substantial question[s] of federal law," in turn was based on Grable & Sons Metal Prod., Inc. v. Darue Eng'g & Mfg., 545 U.S. 308, 313-14 (2005). The relevant holding of Grable is that federal subject matter jurisdiction is proper if (1) the "state-law claim necessarily raise[s] a stated federal issue;" (2) if that issue is "actually disputed;" (3) "substantial;" and (4) if that issue is one "which a federal forum may entertain without disturbing any congressionally approved balance of federal and state judicial responsibilities." Id. at 314.
Neither party briefed Grable, nor discussed the case when prompted to at the hearing. The Court now order the parties to each file one brief, not to exceed 6 pages addressing: (1) whether Grable applies to this case; and (2) Straughter's satisfaction of the Grable factors. These briefs must be filed by October 23, 2017.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
