Natarajan v. Natarajan
- Nathanael Cousins
- 5:21-cv-08563
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Natarajan v. Natarajan, Judge Cousins ordered Rakesh Natarajan to explain why the case should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
Rakesh Natarajan must respond by December 2, 2021, or the court may recommend dismissing his complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Tharani Priya Natarajan remains the defendant, and the case was not dismissed in this order.
What happened
In Natarajan v. Natarajan, Rakesh Natarajan sued Tharani Priya Natarajan over alleged false statements in documents submitted to the government. He cited four federal statutes.
The court said two cited statutes describe government procedures, while the other two impose penalties but do not allow private people to sue under them. The court therefore questioned whether Rakesh Natarajan had standing and whether the court had authority to hear the case.
Judge Cousins ordered Rakesh Natarajan to explain in writing by December 2, 2021, why the case should not be dismissed. The court did not dismiss the case in this order; it said that failing to respond would lead it to recommend dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
The detailed version
- Natarajan v. Natarajan · No. 5:21-cv-08563
- Nathanael Cousins
- Nov. 5, 2021
Background
Rakesh Natarajan filed a complaint against Tharani Priya Natarajan. He asserted two claims based on alleged false statements of material fact in documents submitted to the government. The complaint cited 28 U.S.C. § 1746, 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(C)(G), 18 U.S.C. § 1001, and 18 U.S.C. § 1546.
Jurisdictional concern
The court explained that 28 U.S.C. § 1746 concerns when a signed declaration may substitute for sworn oral testimony, and that Title 8 and § 1182 concern immigration procedures. The court further explained that 18 U.S.C. § 1001 and § 1546 establish penalties but do not create private rights of action. In other words, a private citizen cannot sue another person under those statutes.
Because the statutes did not provide a private right to sue, the court stated that Rakesh Natarajan could not show an invasion of a legally protected interest sufficient to establish standing. Without standing, the court would lack subject-matter jurisdiction, meaning authority to hear the dispute.
Order
Judge Cousins ordered Rakesh Natarajan to show cause in writing by December 2, 2021, why the case should not be dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The court did not dismiss the complaint in this order. It stated that if Rakesh Natarajan did not respond by the deadline, the court would recommend dismissal.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.