Byron Sy et al v. Stewart Financial Inc et al

Filing 7

MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS): ORDER DISMISSING PLAINTIFFS' RICO CLAIM FOR RELIEF WITH PREJUDICE FOR FAILURE TO FILE A "RICO CASE STATEMENT"; ORDER DECLINING TO EXERCISE SUPPLEMENTAL JURISDICTION OVER PLAINTIFFS' REMAINING CLAIMS by Judge John F. Walter: The Court has dismissed the only federal claim alleged in Plaintiffs' Complaint. Although Plaintiffs allege that this Court also has diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 USC section 1332(a), Plaintiffs fail to allege the citizenship of any of the parties. (See attached Order for further details). (Made JS-6. Case Terminated.) (jp)

JS-6

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

CV 12-2098-JFW (JEMx)

Title:

Byron Sy, et al. -v- Stewart Financial Inc., et al.

Date: April 16, 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 PLAINTIFFS’ RICO CLAIM FOR
RELIEF WITH PREJUDICE FOR FAILURE TO FILE A
“RICO CASE STATEMENT”;
ORDER DECLINING TO EXERCISE SUPPLEMENTAL
JURISDICTION OVER PLAINTIFFS’ REMAINING
CLAIMS

On March 23, 2012, the Court issued an Order directing Plaintiffs to file a “RICO Case
Statement” on or before April 9, 2012. In that Order, the Court also advised Plaintiffs that failure to
respond to the Order would result in the dismissal with prejudice of all RICO claims for relief.
As of April 13, 2012, Plaintiffs have failed to file a “RICO Case Statement,” or any response
to the Court’s March 23, 2012 Order. Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ tenth claim for relief (Counts One
through Three), alleging conduct in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961, et seq., is hereby DISMISSED
with prejudice. See, e.g., Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258 (9th Cir. 1992).
The Court has dismissed the only federal claim alleged in Plaintiffs’ Complaint. Although
Plaintiffs allege that this Court also has diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a),
Plaintiffs fail to allege the citizenship of any of the parties. The basic requirement for jurisdiction in
diversity cases pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) is that all plaintiffs be of different citizenship than
all defendants. See Strawbridge v. Curtiss, 7 U.S. 267 (1806); see also Munoz v. Small Business
Administration, 644 F.2d 1361, 1365 (9th Cir. 1981) (noting that “[d]iversity jurisdiction requires that
the plaintiffs and each defendant be citizens of different states”). For example, 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).

Page 1 of 2

Initials of Deputy Clerk sr

Accordingly, in light of the Court’s Order dismissing the only claim over which this Court has
original jurisdiction, and after considering judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity, the
Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ remaining claims for relief. See
28 U.S.C. § 1367(d), Satey v. JPMorgan Chase & Co., 521 F.3d 1087, 1091 (9th Cir. 2008)
(quoting Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 351 (1988)) (“‘[I]n the usual case in which
all federal-law claims are eliminated before trial, the balance of factors to be considered under the
pendent jurisdiction doctrine – judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity – will point
toward declining to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.’”). Accordingly,
Plaintiffs’ remaining claims are DISMISSED without prejudice

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Page 2 of 2

Initials of Deputy Clerk sr