Harris v. Air Transport District 143 International Association of Machinis...Aerospace Workers et al Doc.

2
Case 2:05-cv-01824-JLR Document 2 Filed 11/14/2005 Page 1 of 2

1
2
3
4
5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE
7
8
GEORGE HARRIS,
9
10 Plaintiff,
CASE NO. C05-1824JLR
11 v.
MINUTE ORDER
12 AIR TRANSPORT DISTRICT 143
INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF
13 MACHINISTS & AEROSPACE
14
WORKERS, LOCAL LODGE 1040
INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF
15 MACHINISTS & AEROSPACE
WORKERS,
16
Defendants.
17
18
The following minute order is made by the direction of the court, the Honorable
19
James L. Robart:
20
The court has received Plaintiff’s complaint in this action. It alleges
21
22 discrimination and retaliation in violation of the Washington Law Against Discrimination

23 (“WLAD”). Plaintiff is proceeding without a lawyer in this matter. The court has
24 reviewed the complaint and finds that it states no basis for this court’s jurisdiction. For
25 that reason, the court DISMISSES the action without prejudice.
26 In civil disputes where the United States or its agencies are not parties, this court
27
has jurisdiction in two types of cases. First, it has “federal question” jurisdiction over
28
any action that “aris[es] under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28

MINUTE ORDER - 1

Dockets.Justia.com
 Case 2:05-cv-01824-JLR Document 2 Filed 11/14/2005 Page 2 of 2

1 U.S.C. § 1331. Second, it has “diversity” jurisdiction over civil actions where the
2 plaintiff is a citizen of a different state than every defendant, and the amount in
3
controversy in the action exceeds $75,000. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a).
4
Plaintiff’s complaint states no basis for jurisdiction. The court cannot exercise
5
federal question jurisdiction because Plaintiff’s claims arise under Washington law
6
(specifically the WLAD), not under the laws of the United States. The court cannot
7
8 exercise diversity jurisdiction because Plaintiff admits that he and the trade union

9 Defendants are citizens of Washington.

10 The court is obliged to scrutinize actions before it to determine if it has jurisdiction
11 over the subject matter. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). For the reasons stated above, the court
12
lacks jurisdiction over this action, and therefore DISMISSES this action without prejudice
13
to Plaintiff filing a new action that properly invokes this court’s subject matter
14
jurisdiction.
15
Filed and entered this 14th day of November, 2005.
16
17
BRUCE RIFKIN, Clerk
18
s/Mary Duett
19
By
20 Deputy Clerk
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

MINUTE ORDER - 2