Niels Motor Homes Inc v. Caterpillar Inc et al

Filing 7

MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS): ORDER DISMISSING CASE for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction by Judge John F. Walter, Case Terminated. Made JS-6. (kbr)

PRIORITY SEND

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JS-6

CIVIL MINUTES -- GENERAL
Case No.

CV 11-8865-JFW (AGRx)

Title:

Niels Motor Homes, Inc. -v- Caterpillar, Inc., et al.

Date: November 17, 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

On October 26, 2011, Plaintiff Neil’s Motor Homes, Inc. (“Plaintiff”) filed a Complaint in this
Court against Defendants Caterpillar Inc. and Freightliner Custom Chassis Corporation
(collectively, “Defendants”). Plaintiff failed to properly allege the basis for subject matter
jurisdiction. See, Local Rule 8-1 (“The statutory or other basis for the exercise of jurisdiction by
this Court shall be plainly stated in the first paragraph of any document invoking this Court's
jurisdiction”).
Plaintiff has also not adequately alleged the facts essential for the subject matter jurisdiction
of this Court. Tosco Corp. v. Communities for a Better Environment, 236 F.3d 495, 499 (9th Cir.
2001) (quoting Smith v. McCullough, 270 U.S. 456, 459 (1926)) (“‘A plaintiff suing in a federal court
must show in his pleading, affirmatively and distinctly, the existence of whatever is essential to
federal jurisdiction . . . .’”). 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. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332. However, Plaintiff has failed to allege the citizenship of
either of the Defendants, or that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.
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.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Page 1 of 1

Initials of Deputy Clerk sr