McFarland v. Fuldwer

Background

Allen McFarland, who was representing himself, filed this action against Uber Technologies Inc. and its Vice President, Gus Fuldwer. McFarland asserted that the case belonged in federal court under federal-question jurisdiction. The opinion says, however, that the main issue in his complaint was Uber’s alleged failure to pay waiting-time penalties ordered by the California Labor Commissioner.

Earlier Screening and Recommended Dismissal

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), a magistrate judge screened McFarland’s complaint, which had been filed without prepaying the filing fee, and dismissed it for lack of federal subject-matter jurisdiction. The magistrate judge found that McFarland had not stated a claim establishing federal-question jurisdiction. The court also found that diversity jurisdiction was unavailable because there appeared to be no complete diversity between the parties and McFarland had not alleged more than $75,000 in controversy.

McFarland was directed to file an amended complaint correcting the jurisdictional deficiency by December 13, 2022. He did not file an amended complaint by that deadline. The magistrate judge later recommended that the case be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute. Although McFarland subsequently filed several letters and other documents, he did not file an amended complaint or address federal subject-matter jurisdiction in those filings.

Ruling

Judge James Donato concluded that dismissal was appropriate after considering the court’s need to manage its docket, the public interest in resolving cases promptly, possible prejudice to the defendants, the preference for deciding cases on their merits, and whether less severe measures were available. The court adopted the recommendation and dismissed the case without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).