Beazley Insurance Company Inc v. Nile Niami et al

Filing 4

ORDER DISMISSING CASE for lack of subject matter jurisdiction by Judge John F. Walter, Case Terminated. Made JS-6. (se)

JS-6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES -- GENERAL
Case No.

CV 11-10576-JFW (RZx)

Title:

Beazley Insurance Company, Inc. -v- Nile Niami, et al.

Date: February 8, 2012

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 December 21, 2011, Plaintiff Beazley Insurance Company, Inc. (“Plaintiff”) filed a Complaint
in this Court against Defendants Nile Niami and Yvonne Niami, alleging that the Court had subject
matter jurisdiction over the action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a).
Plaintiff has 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.
In its Complaint, Plaintiff alleges, “on information and belief,” that Defendants are residents of
California. However, “the diversity jurisdiction statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1332, speaks of citizenship, not of
residency.” Kanter v. Warner-Lambert Co., 265 F.3d 853, 857 (9th Cir. 2001). To be a citizen of a
state, a natural person must be a citizen of the United States and be domiciled in a particular state.
Id. Persons are domiciled in the places they reside with the intent to remain or to which they intend to
return. Id. “A person residing in a given state is not necessarily domiciled there, and thus is not
necessarily a citizen of that state.” Id. Therefore, Plaintiff’s allegations are insufficient to establish
Defendants’ citizenship. Moreover, jurisdictional allegations based on information and belief are
insufficient to confer jurisdiction. Kanter v. Warner-Lambert Co., 265 F.3d 853, 857 (9th Cir. 2001)
Page 1 of 2

Initials of Deputy Clerk sr

(“Absent unusual circumstances, a party seeking to invoke diversity jurisdiction should be able to
allege affirmatively the actual citizenship of the relevant parties.”); America’s Best Inns, Inc. v. Best
Inns of Abilene, L.P., 980 F.2d 1072, 1074 (7th Cir. 1992) (holding that allegations based on “to the
best of my knowledge and belief” are insufficient).
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 2 of 2

Initials of Deputy Clerk sr