POR Vida Productions LLC et al v. Christopher Harrison et al

Filing 4

MINUTE IN CHAMBERS by Judge A. Howard Matz: The Court hereby ORDERSPlaintiffs TO SHOW CAUSE on or before 3/24/2011, why this action should not bedismissed for lack of diversity jurisdiction. Failure to respond on or before that date will be construed as consent to dismissal. (jp)

-JC POR Vida Productions LLC et al v. Christopher Harrison et al

Doc. 4

O UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Case No. Title CV 11-1944 AHM (JCx) Date March 11, 2011

POR VIDA PRODUCTIONS, LLC, et al. v. CHRISTOPHER HARRISON, et al.

Present: The Honorable Stephen Montes Deputy Clerk

A. HOWARD MATZ, U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE Not Reported Court Reporter / Recorder Tape No.

Attorneys NOT Present for Plaintiffs:

Attorneys NOT Present for Defendants:

Proceedings:

IN CHAMBERS (No Proceedings Held)

On March 7, 2011, Plaintiffs filed this action based on diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Complaint ¶ 1. However, diversity jurisdiction is not evident from the face of the Complaint. A federal court must determine its own jurisdiction even if there is no objection to it. Rains v. Criterion Sys., Inc., 80 F.3d 339 (9th Cir. 1996). Jurisdiction must be determined from the face of the complaint. Caterpillar, Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987). A federal court has original jurisdiction over a civil matter "where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, . . . and is between . . . citizens of different States." 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). A "corporation [is] deemed to be a citizen of any State by which it has been incorporated and of the State where it has its principal place of business . . . ." Id. at 1332(c)(1). In this case, Plaintiffs do not allege any of the non-entity parties' citizenship, including their own. Rather, they allege the state wherein each non-entity party resides. This is not sufficient to establish citizenship for diversity jurisdiction. Kanter v. WarnerLambert Co., 265 F.3d 853, 857 (9th Cir. 2001) ("Plaintiffs' complaint and Pfizer's notice of removal both state that Plaintiffs were `residents' of California. But the diversity jurisdiction statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1332, speaks of citizenship, not of residency. . . . A person residing in a given state is not necessarily domiciled there, and thus is not necessarily a citizen of that state."). Thus, Plaintiffs' allegations do not conclusively establish diversity jurisdiction.

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 1 of 2

Dockets.Justia.com

O UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Case No. Title CV 11-1944 AHM (JCx) Date March 11, 2011

POR VIDA PRODUCTIONS, LLC, et al. v. CHRISTOPHER HARRISON, et al.

Accordingly, and good cause appearing therefor, the Court hereby ORDERS Plaintiffs TO SHOW CAUSE on or before March 24, 2011, why this action should not be dismissed for lack of diversity jurisdiction. Failure to respond on or before that date will be construed as consent to dismissal.

: Initials of Preparer SMO

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 2 of 2