Cardiac Science Corporation v. Lifecor, Inc. et al

Filing 91

MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS): ORDER DISMISSING CASE by Judge John F. Walter, Case Terminated. The Court hereby DISMISSES this action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Defendants Zoll Medical Corporation and Zoll LifeCor Corporation's Motion for Summary Judgment on Statute of Limitations is DENIED as moot. Made JS-6. (kbr)

PRIORITY SEND

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JS-6

CIVIL MINUTES -- GENERAL
Case No.

CV 11-3710-JFW (VBKx)

Title:

Cardiac Science Corporation -v- LifeCor, Inc., et al.

Date: November 8, 2011

PRESENT:
HONORABLE JOHN F. WALTER, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Shannon Reilly
Courtroom Deputy

None Present
Court Reporter

ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR PLAINTIFFS:
None
PROCEEDINGS (IN CHAMBERS):

ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR DEFENDANTS:
None

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION FOR LACK OF
SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION;
ORDER DENYING AS MOOT DEFENDANTS ZOLL
MEDICAL CORPORATION AND ZOLL LIFECOR
CORPORATION’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT ON STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS
GROUNDS [filed 10/6/2011; Docket No. 73]

On April 29, 2011, Plaintiff Cardiac Science Corporation (“Plaintiff”) filed a Complaint in this
Court against Defendants LifeCor, Inc. and Zoll Medical Corporation, alleging that this Court has
subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). On July 25, 2011,
Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint that added Zoll LifeCor Corporation as a defendant. In
Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint, Plaintiff also alleges that this Court has subject matter
jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a).
Diversity jurisdiction founded under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) requires that (1) all plaintiffs be of
different citizenship than all defendants, and (2) the amount in controversy exceed $75,000. For
the purposes of diversity jurisdiction, a corporation is a citizen of any state where it is incorporated
and of the state where it has its principal place of business. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c); see also Indus.
Tectonics, Inc. v. Aero Alloy, 912 F.2d 1090, 1092 (9th Cir. 1990).
Although the Court had subject matter jurisdiction at the time Plaintiff filed its original
Complaint, the Court no longer has subject matter jurisdiction over this action due to the addition of
Zoll LifeCor Corporation as a defendant. Both Plaintiff and Defendant Zoll LifeCor Corporation are
incorporated in Delaware, and thus are both citizens of Delaware. See First Amended Complaint
at ¶¶ 1,3; Zoll Medical Corporation and Zoll LifeCor Corporation’s Answer to Plaintiff’s Amended
Page 1 of 2

Initials of Deputy Clerk sr

Complaint at ¶ 3. Although diversity is generally determined as of the time of filing of the
complaint, “[i]n the case of an amended complaint which joins new parties, . . . the diversity must
exist at the time of the amendment.” China Basin Properties, Ltd. v. Allendale Mutual Ins. Co., 818
F. Supp. 1301, 1303 (N.D. Cal. 1992) (citing Lewis v. Lewis, 358 F.2d 495, 502 (9th Cir. 1966)).
Accordingly, because the parties in the First Amended Complaint are not completely diverse, the
Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this action.1
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3) specifically states that “[i]f the court determines at
any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action.” Fed. R. Civ. P.
12(h)(3). Pursuant to Rule 12(h)(3), “a court may raise the question of subject matter jurisdiction,
sua sponte, at any time during the pendency of the action, even on appeal.” Snell v. Cleveland,
Inc., 316 F.3d 822, 826 (9th Cir. 2002); see also Emerich v. Touche Ross & Co., 846 F.2d 1190,
1194 n. 2 (9th Cir. 1988) (noting that “[i]t is elementary that the subject matter jurisdiction of the
district court is not a waivable matter and may be raised at anytime by one of the parties, by
motion or in the responsive pleadings, or sua sponte by the trial or reviewing court”).
Accordingly, the Court hereby DISMISSES this action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Defendants Zoll Medical Corporation and Zoll LifeCor Corporation’s Motion for Summary Judgment
on Statute of Limitations is DENIED as moot.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

1

Although Plaintiff seeks declaratory relief pursuant to the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28
U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202, the Declaratory Judgment Act merely creates a remedy in actions
otherwise within the Court's jurisdiction, i.e., there must be an independent basis for the court's
jurisdiction. American Cas. Co. v. Krieger , 181 F.3d 1113, 1118 (9th Cir. 1999).
Page 2 of 2

Initials of Deputy Clerk sr