Jose de Anda et al v. Alexandra Investments Inc et al

Filing 5

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION by Magistrate Judge Ralph Zarefsky. Response to Order to Show Cause due by 3/24/2014. (See document for details). (ib)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

JOSE AND LAURA DE ANDA,

12

Plaintiffs,

13
14

vs.
ALEXANDRA INVESTMENTS, ET AL.,

15

Defendants.

16

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CASE NO. CV 14-1176 RZ
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY
ACTION SHOULD NOT BE
DISMISSED FOR LACK OF
JURISDICTION

17

Plaintiffs are suing over a car collision in Las Vegas in 2012. The Court

18

issues this Order To Show Cause because it appears that the Court may lack subject matter

19

jurisdiction.

20

Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, and if subject matter

21

jurisdiction does not affirmatively appear, federal courts are presumed to lack jurisdiction.

22

National Treasury Employees Union v. Federal Labor Relations Authority, 112 F.3d 402,

23

403 (9th Cir. 1997), citing General Atomic Co. v. United Nuclear Corp., 655 F.2d 968,

24

968-69 (9th Cir. 1981). The two plaintiffs ground jurisdiction on diversity of citizenship

25

under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. In that context, they allege that they “reside in this district” in

26

California and were “residents of the County of Los Angeles” at all relevant times. Comp.

27

¶ 2. They similarly allege where one of the defendants, Rimon Elia Hormez, resides

28

without alleging the state in which Hormez is a citizen. Comp. ¶ 5. But residence is not

1

the same as citizenship. Kanter v. Warner-Lambert Co., 265 F.3d 853, 857-58 (9th Cir.

2

2001); Jeffcott v. Donovan, 135 F.2d 213 (9th Cir. 1943). Because the allegation of

3

residence is not sufficient to establish citizenship, the diversity of the parties does not

4

affirmatively appear from the Complaint.

5

The foregoing flaw may be curable, but the following one may not be.

6

Plaintiffs must establish complete diversity to support this federal court’s jurisdiction.

7

Strawbridge v. Curtiss, 7 U.S. 267, 3 Cranch 267, 2 L.Ed. 435 (1806). Even if every party

8

were a citizen of the state in which Plaintiffs allege they reside (or, as to corporate

9

defendants, the states in which they are incorporated and have their principal places of

10

business), the Californian Plaintiffs are suing a Californian defendant, Alexandra

11

Investments, in addition to two Nevadans.

12

Accordingly, Plaintiffs shall show cause in writing not later than March 24,

13

2014 why the action should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. If, before March 24,

14

2014, Plaintiffs file an amended complaint curing the jurisdictional defect, the Court will

15

discharge the Order to Show Cause.

16

Before closing, the Court notes another concern, namely venue. Plaintiffs are

17

suing a Nevadan driver of a partially Californian-owned car for crashing into the Plaintiffs’

18

car in Las Vegas.

19

involved, other than that Alexandra co-owned the car that Hormez was driving.) Although

20

the Court makes no ruling at this time, it appears that venue may properly lie solely in

21

Nevada – and, unless the jurisdictional defects noted can be cured, in a state court there

22

rather than a federal one.

23

(Plaintiffs do not allege how Alexandra Investments is at fault or

DATED: February 25, 2014

24
25

RALPH ZAREFSKY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

26
27
28
-2-