Chen v. City of Bellevue

THE HONORABLE JOHN C. COUGHENOUR UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 8 AT SEATTLE QING CHEN, CASE NO. C19-1442-JCC Plaintiff, MINUTE ORDER 11 v. CITY OF BELLEVUE, 13 Defendant.

15 The following Minute Order is made by direction of the Court, the Honorable John C.

16 Coughenour, United States District Judge: 17 This matter comes before the Court sua sponte. Plaintiff Qing Chen, a resident of Bellevue, Washington, brings suit against Defendant City of Bellevue. (See Dkt. No. 1 at 1–2.)

19 Plaintiff states that while she was walking in Bellevue in February 2019, she fell and broke her ankle because of gravel Defendant had placed alongside the road. (See id. at 7.) Plaintiff asserts that “[t]his is a liability charge and negligence from the defendant caused me substantial personal injury and related losses.” (Id.) Plaintiff seeks approximately $3,000 in out-of-pocket costs along with unspecified damages for pain and suffering, inability to perform her professional work, loss of quality of life, and long-term medical damage. (Id.) In her civil cover sheet, Plaintiff states that the Court has jurisdiction because the United States Government is a defendant. (See Dkt.

26 No. 4 at 2.) Plaintiff’s complaint does not assert another basis for the Court’s jurisdiction. (See Dkt. No. 1 at 3–5.)

2 A court may sua sponte raise the issue of subject matter jurisdiction at any time during an action. Allstate Ins. Co. v. Hughes, 358 F.3d 1089, 1093 (9th Cir. 2004); Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3).

4 Federal courts generally possess two types of subject matter jurisdiction—federal question jurisdiction and diversity of citizenship jurisdiction. Federal question jurisdiction exists where a plaintiff’s claim arises “under the Constitution, law, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Diversity of citizenship jurisdiction exists where the amount at issue in the lawsuit is more than $75,000 and no plaintiffs or defendants are citizens of the same state. See 28 U.S.C. § 9 1332. “If the court determines at any time that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3).

11 Plaintiff’s complaint does not plead facts demonstrating that the Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this case. While Plaintiff states that the Court has jurisdiction because the United States Government is a defendant, the only named defendant in her complaint is the City of Bellevue. (Compare Dkt. No. 4 at 2, with Dkt. No. 1 at 1–2.) Plaintiff’s complaint does not assert a claim arising under the Constitution, federal law, or a treaty of the United States, and thus she has not invoked the Court’s federal question jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331; (see generally Dkt. No. 1). And Plaintiff has not pled facts demonstrating that she seeks damages in excess of $75,000 or that she and Defendant are citizens of different states. See 28 19 U.S.C. § 1332; (Dkt. Nos. 1 at 1–2, 7; 4 at 2).

20 For the foregoing reasons, the Court hereby ORDERS Plaintiff to show cause why her complaint should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Plaintiff’s response to this order must be submitted no later than 21 days from the date the order is issued and must not exceed six pages in length.

24 // 25 // 26 // 1 DATED this 3rd day of December 2019.

2 William M. McCool Clerk of Court s/Tomas Hernandez 4 Deputy Clerk