Global Acquisitions Network et al v. Bank of America Corporation et al

Filing 20

AMENDED ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THIS ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION by Judge Dean D. Pegerson. Plaintiffs to file a brief, not to exceed ten pages, by Friday, January 4, 2013, showing why this action should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Plaintiffs should also deliver a courtesy copy to chambers, Room 244-J, Second Floor, 312 N. Spring Street, Los Angeles. The court will regard any failure to file an explanatory brief as consent to dismiss this matter. (lc). Modified on 12/19/2012 (lc).

1
2

O

3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12

GLOBAL ACQUISITIONS NETWORK,
a Wyoming corporation; SHAWN
CORNEILLE, an individual,

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

Plaintiffs,
v.
BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION,
a Delaware corporation;
ORIANA CAPITAL PARTNERS,LLC,
a Connecticut limited
liability company; ZANCO, a
company of unknown business
form, HLB FINANCIAL, LLC, a
company of unknown form; W/C
INVESTMETN HOLDINGS INC., a
Florida corporatin; DEXTER
CHAPPELL, an individual;
VALERIE CHAPPELL, an
individual; JON LEARY, an
individual; et al.,

22
23
24

Defendants.
___________________________

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. CV 12-08758 DDP (CWx)
AMENDED ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY
THIS ACTION SHOULD NOT BE
DISMISSED FOR LACK OF SUBJECT
MATTER JURISDICTION

Plaintiffs Global Acquisitions Network and Shawn Corneille are

25

ordered to show cause why this action should not be dismissed for

26

lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

27
28

District courts have “original jurisdiction of all civil
actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the

1

United States.”

28 U.S.C. § 1331.

2

may exercise diversity jurisdiction when there is complete

3

diversity between the parties and the amount in controversy exceeds

4

$75,000.

5

the plaintiffs must be a citizen of a different state than each of

6

the defendants. Caterpillar Inc. v. Lewis, 519 U.S. 61, 68 (1996).

7

Here, nothing on the face of Plaintiffs’ Complaint suggests a

28 U.S.C. § 1332.

Alternatively, district courts

Complete diversity means that each of

8

federal question.

9

that there is complete diversity of Plaintiffs and Defendants,

Furthermore, it is not clear from the Complaint

10

since the citizenship of Defendant HLB Financial LLC is not

11

indicated.

12

Accordingly, the court orders Plaintiffs to file a brief, not

13

to exceed ten pages, by Friday, January 4, 2013, showing why this

14

action should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

15

Plaintiffs should also deliver a courtesy copy to chambers, Room

16

244-J, Second Floor, 312 N. Spring Street, Los Angeles.

17

will regard any failure to file an explanatory brief as consent to

18

dismiss this matter.

The court

19
20

IT IS SO ORDERED.

21
22
23

Dated: December 19, 2012
DEAN D. PREGERSON
United States District Judge

24
25
26
27
28
2