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

Filing 8

FURTHER ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION by Magistrate Judge Ralph Zarefsky: Show Cause Hearing on this Order to Show Cause and on the Order to Show Cause filed 2/25/14 5 is set for 4/28/2014 at 10:00AM before Magistrate Judge Ralph Zarefsky. Response to Order to Show Cause due by 4/21/2014. (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
13
14
15

Plaintiffs,
vs.
ALEXANDRA INVESTMENTS, ET AL.,
Defendants.

16

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

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

17

Plaintiffs are California citizens who assert diversity jurisdiction in this action

18

stemming from a 2012 auto collision in Las Vegas. On February 25, the Court issued an

19

Order to Show Cause (OSC), explaining that the initial complaint failed to allege the

20

parties’ state citizenship, as opposed to their state residence. Also, Plaintiffs were alleging

21

that the first-named defendant, Alexandria Investments, Inc., was a California corporation

22

principally doing business in San Diego. The Court further explained that such facts

23

strongly suggested that the required complete diversity was lacking. The Court stated that

24

it would discharge the OSC if Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint (1AC) correcting

25

these facial shortcomings.

26

Plaintiffs filed their 1AC on March 24. The Court remains concerned,

27

however, that it lacks jurisdiction, and it thus will not yet discharge the OSC. Plaintiffs

28

now allege that Alexandra Investments, Inc. is incorporated in Nevada and has its principal

1

place of business in Clark County, i.e., that it is a Nevada citizen and, thus, diverse from

2

the California-citizen Plaintiffs. But the Court takes judicial notice of two facts casting

3

doubt on this new allegation. The first is that the California Secretary of State’s public

4

records reflect that an Alexandria Investments, Inc. is a current corporation incorporated

5

in California, based in San Diego, just as Plaintiffs initially alleged. Second, the public

6

records of the Nevada Secretary of State include no current or defunct Nevada corporation

7

called Alexandria Investments, Inc.

8

Alexandria Investments, LLC at the time of the underlying traffic collision, but according

9

to the state’s records, that LLC was dissolved in February 2014.)

(There was a Nevada-registered entity called

10

It is the Court’s duty to assure itself that it has subject-matter jurisdiction. By

11

signing any paper filed with the Court, counsel is “certif[ying] that[,] to the best of

12

[counsel]’s knowledge, information[] and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under

13

the circumstances[,] . . . the factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if specifically

14

so identified, will likely have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further

15

investigation and discovery.” FED. R. CIV. P. 11(b), (b)(3). In light of the change in

16

Plaintiffs’ pleadings, it appears that the pleading may violate Rule 11.

17

Accordingly, and pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 11(c), the Court ORDERS

18

Plaintiffs TO SHOW CAUSE why their pleadings do not violate FED. R. CIV. P. 11(b). The

19

Court sets a hearing on this OSC, together with a hearing on the February 25 OSC, for

20

10:00 a.m. on Monday, April 28, 2014 in Courtroom 540 of the Roybal Federal Building.

21

By April 21, Plaintiffs shall file a memorandum proffering the evidence supporting their

22

averment that Defendant Alexandria Investments, Inc. is a citizen of the state of Nevada.

23

Plaintiffs may include in their memorandum any additional pertinent matters, including any

24

legal authorities.

25

DATED: April 9, 2014

26
27
28

RALPH ZAREFSKY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
-2-