Levy v. 24 Hour Fitness Worldwide, Inc. (North Hollywood)
3:13-cv-00892
N.D. Cal.Mar 22, 2013Background
- Levy filed a complaint and moved to proceed in forma pauperis in 13-cv-00892 NC; court proposes reassignment and dismissal without prejudice.
- Levy alleges an ankle injury while using a computer at a 24 Hour Fitness in North Hollywood after a manager allegedly yelled at her.
- She claims discrimination based on national origin and disability, and seeks damages and future medical costs.
- The court concludes Levy’s federal claims under Civil Rights Act and ADA lack factual basis and are frivolous.
- Court recommends granting IFP status and dismissing the complaint without prejudice for lack of federal subject matter jurisdiction and frivolousness.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Levy qualifies for in forma pauperis status | Levy is indigent and homeless | N/A | Levy qualifies; IFP granted |
| Whether the complaint should be dismissed for frivolousness or lack of jurisdiction | Lack of jurisdiction asserted by plaintiff | Cases show frivolous, unsupported factual allegations | Dismissal without prejudice for frivolous claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) |
| Whether federal jurisdiction exists (diversity or federal question) | Federal question via Civil Rights Act and ADA | No viable federal facts; both parties in California, no jurisdictional basis | No federal subject matter jurisdiction; lack of viable federal claim |
| Whether supplemental state-law claims survive without original jurisdiction | Negligence, personal injury, breach of contract | Without original jurisdiction, no supplemental jurisdiction | State claims dismissed for lack of jurisdiction |
Key Cases Cited
- Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221 (9th Cir. 1984) (frivolous or fanciful pleadings may be dismissed)
- Taylor v. Gibson, 529 F.2d 709 (5th Cir. 1976) (frivolous or fantastical pleadings may be dismissed)
- Republican Party of Guam v. Gutierrez, 277 F.3d 1086 (9th Cir. 2002) (federal jurisdiction exists only when federal question is presented on the face of the complaint)
- Provincial Gov’t of Marinduque v. Placer Dome, Inc., 582 F.3d 1083 (9th Cir. 2009) (federal jurisdiction analyzed under standard for federal question)