The Standard Fire Insurance Company v. Todd Larson et al

Filing 19

MINUTE ORDER (IN CHAMBERS) Order to Show Cause re: Dismissal for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction by Judge Philip S. Gutierrez: This action was filed on November 11, 2013, and reassigned to this Court January 15, 2014. However, it appears the Cou rt may lack subject matter jurisdiction for the reason(s) opposite the box(es) checked: [x] Jurisdiction is asserted on the basis of diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a), but the complaint sets forth the residence, rather than the citizenship, of some or all of the parties. Diversity is based on citizenship......Accordingly, the Court orders plaintiff(s) to show cause in writing no later than March 4, 2014 why this action should not be dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Failure to respond by the above date will result in the Court dismissing this action. re: (Response to Order to Show Cause due by 3/4/2014.) (lw)

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

CV 13-8287 PSG (SHx)

Title

Standard Fire Insurance Company v. Todd Larson, et al.

Present:

Date

February 11, 2014

The Honorable Philip S. Gutierrez, United States District Judge

Wendy K. Hernandez
Deputy Clerk

Not Present
Court Reporter

Attorneys Present for Plaintiff(s):

n/a
Tape No.

Attorneys Present for Defendant(s):

Not Present

Not Present

Proceedings: (In Chambers) Order to Show Cause re: Dismissal for Lack of
Subject Matter Jurisdiction
This action was filed on November 11, 2013, and reassigned to this Court January 15,
2014. However, it appears the Court may lack subject matter jurisdiction for the reason(s)
opposite the box(es) checked:
[ ]

Jurisdiction is asserted on the basis of federal question jurisdiction pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1331, but it does not appear that any of the claims “arise under” federal
law.

[ ]

Jurisdiction is asserted on the basis of diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1332(a), but all plaintiffs are not diverse from all defendants. See Caterpillar
Inc. v. Lewis, 519 U.S. 61, 67-68 (1996).

[ ]

Jurisdiction is asserted on the basis of diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1332(a), but the complaint fails to allege the citizenship of some or all of the:
[ ] plaintiff(s).
[ ] defendant(s).

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 1 of 4

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

CV 13-8287 PSG (SHx)

Date

Title

February 11, 2014

Standard Fire Insurance Company v. Todd Larson, et al.
[x]

Jurisdiction is asserted on the basis of diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1332(a), but the complaint sets forth the residence, rather than the citizenship, of
some or all of the parties. Diversity is based on citizenship.

[ ]

Jurisdiction is asserted on the basis of diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1332(a). A partnership, limited liability company, or other unincorporated
association is named as a party. The Court must consider the citizenship of each of
the partners, including limited partners, or members. The citizenship of each of
the entity’s partners or members must therefore be alleged. See Carden v. Arkoma
Assocs., 494 U.S. 185, 195-96 (1990); United Steelworkers v. R.H. Bouligny, Inc.,
382 U.S. 145 (1965); Johnson v. Columbia Props. Anchorage, LP, 437 F.3d 894,
899 (9th Cir. 2006); Rockwell Int’l Credit Corp. v. U.S. Aircraft Ins. Grp., 823
F.2d 302, 304 (9th Cir. 1987). The complaint does not set forth the citizenship of
each of the entity’s partners or members.

[ ]

Jurisdiction is asserted on the basis of diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1332(a). A corporation is named as a party. The complaint is deficient because:
[ ]

[ ]

[ ]

the complaint does not set forth the corporation’s state(s) of incorporation
and its principal place of business. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c).
the complaint does not set forth adequate facts to support the assertion that
the alleged principal place of business is the corporate party’s principal
place of business. For diversity purposes, a corporation’s principal place of
business is “the place where the corporation’s high level officers direct,
control, and coordinate the corporation’s activities.” Hertz Corp. v. Friend,
559 U.S. 77, 80-81 (2010).

Jurisdiction is asserted on the basis of diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1332(a). A national bank is named as a party. The complaint is deficient
because:
[ ]

CV-90 (06/04)

the complaint does not allege the state of the national bank’s main office, as
set forth in its articles of association, and its principal place of business.
See Wachovia Bank v. Schmidt, 546 U.S. 303, 307 (2006); Olson v. Wells
Fargo Bank, N.A., No. CV 13-2906-GHK (AGRx), 2013 WL 4407495, at
*12 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 1, 2013).
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 2 of 4

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

CV 13-8287 PSG (SHx)

Title

Standard Fire Insurance Company v. Todd Larson, et al.
[ ]

Date

February 11, 2014

the complaint does not set forth adequate facts to support the assertion that
the alleged principal place of business is the national bank’s principal place
of business.

[ ]

Jurisdiction is asserted on the basis of diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1332(a). A party is named in a representative capacity, but the citizenship of the
represented person is not alleged or appears not to be diverse. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 1332(c)(2).

[ ]

Jurisdiction is asserted on the basis of diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1332(a), but the matter in controversy does not appear to exceed $75,000,
exclusive of interest and costs.

[ ]

Jurisdiction is asserted on the basis of diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1332(a), and the action involves multiple plaintiffs and/or is a class action. The
complaint is deficient because it does not state that at least one of the named
plaintiffs has a claim exceeding $75,000. Where the action does not implicate a
common fund or a joint interest, at least one of the named plaintiffs must meet the
amount in controversy requirement. See Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Servs.,
Inc., 545 U.S. 546, 558-59 (2005). Where injunctive relief is sought in a multipleplaintiff action, “the amount in controversy requirement cannot be satisfied
[merely] by showing that the fixed administrative costs of compliance exceed
$75,000.” In re Ford Motor Co./Citibank (S.D.), N.A. Cardholder Rebate
Program Litig., 264 F.3d 952, 961 (9th Cir. 2001).

Accordingly, the Court orders plaintiff(s) to show cause in writing no later than March 4,
2014 why this action should not be dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction. Failure to respond by the above date will result in the Court dismissing this action.

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 3 of 4

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

CV 13-8287 PSG (SHx)

Date

Title

February 11, 2014

Standard Fire Insurance Company v. Todd Larson, et al.

The Court further orders plaintiff(s) to promptly serve this minute order on any defendant
who has been served with the complaint, or who is served before the date specified above.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 4 of 4