Arch Insurance Company v. Liberty Surplus Insurance Corporation

Filing 20

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION by Judge George H. Wu: Please refer to the Court's order for specifics. Response to Order to Show Cause due by 12/2/2015. (cr)

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

CV 15-6456-GW (SS)

Title

Arch Ins. Co. v. Liberty Surplus Ins. Corp.

Present: The Honorable

Date

November 25, 2015

GEORGE H. WU, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Charles A. Rojas

None Present

Deputy Clerk

Court Reporter / Recorder

Tape No.

Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs:

Attorneys Present for Defendants:

None Present

None Present

PROCEEDINGS (IN CHAMBERS):

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE SUBJECT MATTER
JURISDICTION

Arch Insurance Co. (“Plaintiff”) brings this action against Liberty Surplus Insurance Corp.
(“Defendant”) for (1) equitable contribution for defense fees and costs (2) equitable contribution for
indemnity payments, (3) equitable indemnity for defense fees and costs, (4) equitable indemnity for
indemnity payments, and (5) declaratory relief. See generally Compl., Docket No. 1. Plaintiff asserts
diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332. See id. ¶ 3. As the party asserting jurisdiction,
Plaintiff has the burden of establishing that subject matter jurisdiction exists before this matter proceeds
further. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994) (“It is to be presumed that
a cause lies outside this limited jurisdiction, and the burden of establishing the contrary rests upon the
party asserting jurisdiction.”) (citations omitted). Plaintiff’s jurisdictional allegations are presently
insufficient.
Plaintiff alleges that it is a Missouri corporation that “lawfully transacts insurance in this
County,” see Compl. ¶ 1, and that Defendant is a New Hampshire corporation that “lawfully transacts
insurance in this County,” see id. ¶ 2. For diversity purposes, a corporation is a “citizen of every State
and foreign state by which it has been incorporated and of the State or foreign state where it has its
principal place of business.” 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1). The phrase “principal place of business” means
the place where a corporation’s board and high level officers direct, control and coordinate its activities.
Hertz Corp. v. Friend, 559 US 77, 80-81, 92-93 (2010). Plaintiff must indicate the principle place of
business for each entity.

:
Initials of Preparer
CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

CR
Page 1 of 2

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

CV 15-6456-GW (SS)

Date

Title

November 25, 2015

Arch Ins. Co. v. Liberty Surplus Ins. Corp.

Thus, Plaintiff is hereby ordered to show cause, in writing by noon on December 2, 2015, as to
why this action should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See Arbaugh v. Y&H
Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 514 (2006) (indicating that courts must assure themselves of the existence of
subject matter jurisdiction before proceeding); Valdez v. Allstate Ins. Co., 372 F.3d 1115, 1116 (9th Cir.
2004) (same). Failure to cure the jurisdictional deficiency will result in dismissal.
The Court further orders the Court Clerk promptly to serve this order on all parties who have
appeared in the action.

:
Initials of Preparer
CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

CR
Page 2 of 2