ELOISE ADELT, APPELLANT,
v.
RICHMOND SCHOOL DISTRICT, RICHMOND UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, DOE 1, DOE 2, DOE 3, DOE 4, DOE 5, DOE 6, DOE 7, DOE 8, DOE 9, DOE 10, APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the district court correctly dismissed the complaint for lack of federal jurisdiction, as the claim was a state law contract dispute and not a federal question.
Plaintiff sued a school district for breach of a teaching contract, alleging violations of due process and equal protection. The parties were all citi…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse 28 U.S.C. § 1331(A) cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
Plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the district court dismissing her complaint without leave to amend. We affirm.
Plaintiff’s allegations affirmatively show a lack of federal jurisdiction of her claim. Diversity is non-existent— the parties all are citizens and residents of California. Nor is the action one which “arises under the Constitution, laws or treaties of the United States” and hence within the purview of 28 U. S.C. § 1331(a). To the contrary (and despite plaintiff’s conclusionary characterization of defendants’ acts as viola-tive of due process and equal protection, etc.) the claim is simply one for breach of contract, the charge being that the defendant school district refused to perform certain obligations imposed upon it under a teaching contract entered into with plaintiff.
Plaintiff did litigate her claim in the appropriate state court; the judgment went against her and was affirmed on appeal. Adelt v. Richmond School District, 250 Cal.App.2d 149, 58 Cal.Rptr. 151 (1967). Thereafter, the California Supreme Court denied her petition for hearing. The present suit, in effect, constitutes an attempt to have a federal court correct errors assertedly made in the state proceedings. However, the asserted errors are not of Constitutional dimension and present no federal question.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
The Mescalero Apache Tribe v. Martinez, 519 F.2d 479 (10th Cir. 1975)
-
Sanders v. Indep. Sch. Dist. NO. I-2, 459 F.2d 51 (10th Cir. 1972)
-
Adelt v. Richmond Sch. Dist., 476 F.2d 662 (9th Cir. 1973)