Langenderfer v. Miller
- Haywood Gilliam
- 4:24-cv-06526
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 4
In Langenderfer v. Miller, Judge Gilliam granted defendants’ jurisdictional dismissal motion, allowing Langenderfer 30 days to amend and establish federal jurisdiction.
Thomas Langenderfer, who represented himself, and defendants Thomas J. Madden and Roger A. Miller. The order gives Langenderfer one opportunity to amend; the opinion states that the case will be dismissed without prejudice to refiling in state court if he cannot establish federal jurisdiction.
What happened
In Langenderfer v. Miller, Thomas Langenderfer, representing himself, sought about $8 million from defendants for allegedly failing to pay money under a contract.
The court found that the complaint did not establish federal jurisdiction. Paying federal taxes, involving an Indian reservation, and the allegations about the parties’ citizenship did not show a federal question or complete diversity.
Judge Gilliam granted the motion to dismiss but gave Langenderfer one opportunity to file an amended complaint within 30 days explaining what federal question his claim raises. Without that explanation, the case will be dismissed without prejudice to refiling in state court.
The detailed version
- Langenderfer v. Miller · No. 4:24-cv-06526
- Haywood Gilliam
- Apr. 16, 2025
Background
Pro se plaintiff Geronimo Thomas Langenderfer filed a breach-of-contract case seeking approximately $8 million. The complaint named Thomas J. Madden, Nicholas Lumbreras, and Roger A. Miller as defendants. Madden and Miller moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), which allows dismissal when the court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction—the legal authority to hear the dispute.
Jurisdiction analysis
The court explained that the party invoking federal jurisdiction must establish that jurisdiction exists. Based on the complaint and the opposition to the motion, the court understood Langenderfer to argue that federal-question jurisdiction existed because the defendants paid federal taxes and because the dispute involved an Indian tribe or reservation.
The court rejected those arguments. The alleged failure to pay money under a contract did not arise under federal tax law, and the complaint did not appear to present a substantial and disputed federal issue. The court also explained that federal-question jurisdiction does not exist merely because an Indian tribe or an individual is a party. For the same reason, the court found no jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1362, which applies to certain actions brought by federally recognized Indian tribes but still requires the dispute to arise under federal law. The court additionally noted that the complaint did not establish the required complete diversity of citizenship for jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332.
Disposition
The court GRANTED the motion to dismiss. It gave Langenderfer one opportunity to amend the complaint within 30 days of the order and required him to clearly explain what federal question his claim raises. If he cannot do so, the case will be dismissed without prejudice to refiling in state court. Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. signed the order.
Note on the record
The caption identifies the plaintiff as Thomas Langenderfer, while the opinion's background refers to him as Geronimo Thomas Langenderfer. This summary uses the captioned case name and reports the inconsistency rather than resolving it.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.