Angelina Triplett-Hill v. Micah Williams et al

Filing 38

MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) by Judge Christina A. Snyder: RE DEFENDANTS MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFFS COMPLAINT 34 . The Court GRANTS defendants motion to dismiss. Plaintiff may file an amended complaint addressing the deficiencies identified herein on or before May 2, 2018. Failure to do so may result in dismissal with prejudice. (lc). Modified on 4/11/2018 (lc).

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case No.
Title

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
‘O’
2:16-cv-06196-CAS-(GJSx)
Date April 11, 2018
ANGELINA TRIPLETT-HILL v. MICAH WILLIAMS ET AL.

Present: The Honorable

CHRISTINA A. SNYDER

Catherine Jeang
Deputy Clerk

Not Present
Court Reporter / Recorder

N/A
Tape No.

Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs:

Attorneys Present for Defendant s:

Not Present

Not Present

Proceedings:

(IN CHAMBERS) - DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS
PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT (Filed March 12, 2018, dkt. 34)

The Court finds this motion appropriate for decision without oral argument. Fed. R.
Civ. P. 78; Local Rule 7–15. Accordingly, the hearing date of April 16, 2018 is vacated,
and the matter is hereby taken under submission.
I.

INTRODUCTION

On August 17, 2016, plaintiff Angelina Triplett-Hill filed the instant action against
defendants Micah Williams p/k/a Katt Williams (the “defendant”) and Does 1–5. Dkt. 1
(“Compl.”). In brief, plaintiff alleges that defendant struck her several times and caused
severe bodily injuries. Id. Plaintiff asserts claims for battery, emotional distress,
negligence, and wrongful termination. Id.
On June 29, 2017, the Court issued an order to show cause why this action should
not be dismissed for lack of prosecution by the plaintiff. Dkt. 15. On July 10, 2017,
plaintiff filed an affidavit of personal service on defendant. Dkt. 16.
On July 19, 2017 the Court issued a second order to show cause to plaintiff why
this action should not be dismissed for lack of prosecution. Dkt. 17. On August 2, 2017,
plaintiff applied for entry of default against defendant, claiming that he has been served
with the complaint but failed to serve or file a pleading or otherwise respond to the
complaint within the time limit required by the Court. Dkt. 18. On August 4, 2017 the
Court’s Clerk notified the parties that the proof of service to defendant lacked required
information. Dkt. 19.

CV-6196 (04/18)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 1 of 6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case No.
Title

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
‘O’
2:16-cv-06196-CAS-(GJSx)
Date April 11, 2018
ANGELINA TRIPLETT-HILL v. MICAH WILLIAMS ET AL.

On September 1, 2017, the Court issued a third order to show cause to plaintiff
why this action should not be dismissed for lack of prosecution. Dkt. 20. On September
18, 2017, plaintiff filed a corrected affidavit of personal service on defendant, and on
January 28, 2018, plaintiff filed an application for entry of default against defendant.
Dkts. 21, 22, 26. On January 31, 2018, default was entered against defendant. Dkt. 28.
On February 12, 2018, defendant’s newly-retained legal counsel filed two notices
of appearance and a joint stipulation by both parties to set aside the entry of default.
Dkts. 29–31. On February 12, 2018, the Court granted the parties’ joint stipulation to set
aside the entry of default. Dkt. 33.
On March 12, 2018, defendant filed the instant motion to dismiss for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction. Dkt. 34 (“MTD”). On March 26, 2018, plaintiff filed her
opposition. Dkt. 35. (“Opp’n”). On April 2, 2018, defendant filed a reply. Dkt. 36
(“Reply”).
II.

BACKGROUND
Plaintiff alleges the following facts.

Plaintiff is an individual residing in Tennessee, and defendant is an actor and
stand-up comedian whose state of residency is unknown. Compl. ¶¶ 1–2. Plaintiff
alleges that the Court has federal question and supplemental jurisdiction over the instant
action, and that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. Id. ¶ 6.
Plaintiff served as a personal assistant to the music group “The Isley Brothers” and
met defendant while the group was on tour in 2003. Id. ¶ 8. From then on, plaintiff
occasionally worked for defendant as a personal assistant when he booked a job in the
same city in which plaintiff was located. Id. ¶ 9.
In September 2014, plaintiff alleges that she assisted defendant while defendant
was filming for a movie in Los Angeles. Id. ¶¶ 10–11. On the evening of September 12,
2014, plaintiff, defendant, and other members of defendant’s entourage were allegedly at
an outdoor movie set at a baseball field located in Los Angeles. Id. ¶ 12. Plaintiff
stepped away to take a telephone call from a friend. Id. ¶ 13. When she returned to the
group, defendant allegedly angrily ordered her to return to the transportation caravan in
which they had arrived, “violently lunged” towards plaintiff, snatched her cell phone, and
threw the phone inside the vehicle. Id. ¶¶ 14–15. Plaintiff alleges that she became
CV-6196 (04/18)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 2 of 6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case No.
Title

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
‘O’
2:16-cv-06196-CAS-(GJSx)
Date April 11, 2018
ANGELINA TRIPLETT-HILL v. MICAH WILLIAMS ET AL.

extremely frightened as she had previously witnessed defendant violently beat other
women in her presence. Id. ¶¶ 15–17. Plaintiff alleges that defendant insulted her, that
her attempts to deescalate the situation remained fruitless, and that defendant violently
struck plaintiff in the face an unknown number of times. Id. ¶¶ 18–21. Plaintiff alleges
that she fell, hit her head against the concrete ground, and lost consciousness. Id. ¶ 22.
Shortly thereafter, she regained consciousness and was driven to the Santa Monica
UCLA hospital for treatment of her injuries, where she remained for three days. Id. ¶¶
23–27. Plaintiff subsequently never again worked for defendant, and alleges that she
continues to suffer severe emotional distress as a result of defendant’s actions. Id. ¶¶ 28–
29.
III.

LEGAL STANDARD

A motion pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) motion tests whether the court has subject
matter jurisdiction to hear the claims alleged in the complaint. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1).
Once a Rule 12(b)(1) motion has been raised, the burden is on the party asserting
jurisdiction. Ass’n of Am. Med. Coll. v. United States, 217 F.3d 770, 778–79 (9th Cir.
2000). Such a motion may be “facial” or “factual.” Safe Air for Everyone v. Meyer, 373
F.3d 1035, 1039 (9th Cir. 2004). That is, a party mounting a Rule 12(b)(1) challenge to
the court’s jurisdiction may do so either on the face of the pleadings or by presenting
extrinsic evidence for the court’s consideration. See White v. Lee, 227 F.3d 1214, 1242
(9th Cir. 2000).
Facial attacks “confin[e] the inquiry to allegations in the complaint,” while factual
attacks “permit[] the court to look beyond the complaint.” Savage v. Glendale Union
High Sch., Dist. No. 205, Maricopa Cty., 343 F.3d 1036, 1039 n.2 (9th Cir. 2003). “In
resolving a factual attack on jurisdiction, the district court may review evidence beyond
the complaint without converting the motion to dismiss into a motion for summary
judgment,” and “need not presume the truthfulness of the plaintiff’s allegations.” Safe
Air for Everyone, 373 F.3d at 1039 (citations omitted). “Once the moving party has
converted the motion to dismiss into a factual motion by presenting affidavits or other
evidence properly brought before the court, the party opposing the motion must furnish
affidavits or other evidence necessary to satisfy its burden of establishing subject matter
jurisdiction.” Savage, 343 F.3d at 1039 n.2 (citation omitted).

CV-6196 (04/18)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 3 of 6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case No.
Title
IV.

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
‘O’
2:16-cv-06196-CAS-(GJSx)
Date April 11, 2018
ANGELINA TRIPLETT-HILL v. MICAH WILLIAMS ET AL.

DISCUSSION

Defendant contends that the Court lacks federal question jurisdiction over
plaintiff’s claims and that plaintiff does not allege any basis for supplemental jurisdiction.
MTD at 2. In particular, defendant argues that plaintiff does not identify any federal law
that would provide a basis for federal question jurisdiction, and asserts that the relief
sought is founded exclusively on California state law. Id. at 3.
In opposition, plaintiff argues that the pleadings satisfy the requirements for
diversity jurisdiction despite the complaint’s “erroneous reference” to subject matter
jurisdiction being established pursuant to federal question and supplemental jurisdiction.1
Opp’n at 2. Plaintiff contends that she sufficiently alleges that she is a citizen of
Tennessee and that defendant “is a citizen of an unknown state.” Id. at 4. In addition,
plaintiff asserts that the complaint also identifies that plaintiff has suffered damages in
excess of $1,000,000. Id. Accordingly, plaintiff argues that she has properly
demonstrated diversity jurisdiction insofar as the complaint alleges that plaintiff and
defendant reside in separate states and that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.
Id. at 5.
In reply, defendant notes that plaintiff concedes that the Court does not have
federal question or supplemental jurisdiction over the instant claims, and argues that
plaintiff fails to establish diversity jurisdiction. Reply at 1. Defendant contends that
plaintiff did “not even attempt to conduct any investigation or due diligence regarding
defendant’s citizenship,” insofar as she merely alleges that defendant’s “state of
residency is unknown.” Id. at 2. Defendant argues that these allegations do not establish
that plaintiff and defendant are citizens of different states for purposes of diversity
jurisdiction, and that at best, plaintiff alleges that defendant is “stateless,” which itself
destroys any attempt to establish diversity jurisdiction. Id. at 2–3 (citing Smith v
Alphabet Inc., 2017 WL 2983403, at *4 (S.D. Ala. May 18, 2017); D.B. Zwirn Special
Opportunities Fund, L.P. v. Mehrotra, 661 F.3d 124, 126 (11th Cir. 2011)).
With respect to the amount in controversy, defendant argues that plaintiff has the
burden to establish this amount, and contends that plaintiff’s allegations of $1,000,000 in
On August 17, 2016, plaintiff’s counsel indicated on the complaint’s civil cover
sheet that “diversity” was the basis for the Court’s jurisdiction. Dkt. 2.

1

CV-6196 (04/18)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 4 of 6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case No.
Title

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
‘O’
2:16-cv-06196-CAS-(GJSx)
Date April 11, 2018
ANGELINA TRIPLETT-HILL v. MICAH WILLIAMS ET AL.

punitive damages should be closely scrutinized and are therefore insufficient to confer
diversity jurisdiction.
In general, a federal district court has subject matter jurisdiction where a case
presents a claim arising under federal law or where the plaintiffs and defendants are
residents of different states and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. See, e.g.,
Deutsche Bank Nat’l Trust Co. v. Galindo, No. 10-cv-01893-RGK-DTB, 2011 WL
662324, *1 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 11, 2011) (explaining the two types of jurisdiction). Here,
plaintiff appears to concede that federal question jurisdiction does not exist, and instead
argues that the Court has diversity jurisdiction over the instant action.
With respect to diversity jurisdiction, complete diversity is required, meaning that
“the citizenship of each plaintiff is diverse from the citizenship of each defendant.”
Caterpillar, Inc. v. Lewis, 519 U.S. 61, 68 (1996). For purposes of diversity, a natural
person’s domicile, which determines her state citizenship for purposes of diversity
jurisdiction, is her “permanent home, where she resides with the intention to remain or to
which she intends to return.” Kanter v. Warner-Lambert Co., 265 F.3d 853, 857 (9th Cir.
2001). Plaintiff alleges that she resides in Tennessee. Compl. ¶ 1. However, diversity
jurisdiction requires allegations of citizenship, not residency. See Kanter, 265 F.3d 853
at 857 (holding that allegations of residency are insufficient to allege an individual’s
citizenship). Moreover, plaintiff fails to affirmatively allege defendant’s citizenship. See
Compl. ¶ 2 (defendant’s “state of residency is unknown”); Kanter, 265 F.3d at 857
(“Absent unusual circumstances, a party seeking to invoke diversity jurisdiction should
be able to allege affirmatively the actual citizenship of the relevant parties”); see also
Wright & A. Miller, 5 Federal Practice and Procedure § 1208 (3d ed.) (“It is insufficient
to allege that a party is a ‘citizen of the United States’ without alleging citizenship in a
given state because a person can be a citizen of the United States but not be a citizen of
any state, in which case diversity jurisdiction does not exist.”). Accordingly, the Court
concludes that plaintiff fails to sufficiently allege the state citizenship of either party for
purposes of diversity jurisdiction.
Insofar as plaintiff alleges that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, the
Court finds that plaintiff sufficiently pleads the requisite amount in controversy. See
Compl. ¶ 6; Wright & A. Miller, 5 Federal Practice and Procedure § 1213 (3d ed.)
(noting that allegations that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 is sufficient as a
pleading matter unless the other allegations of the complaint detract from its credibility).
Given that plaintiff alleges she suffered injuries requiring a three-day hospital stay as a
CV-6196 (04/18)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 5 of 6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case No.
Title

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
‘O’
2:16-cv-06196-CAS-(GJSx)
Date April 11, 2018
ANGELINA TRIPLETT-HILL v. MICAH WILLIAMS ET AL.

result of defendant’s alleged conduct, the Court finds this amount in controversy
allegation to be sufficiently credible.
Accordingly, because plaintiff fails to adequately plead the citizenship of both
parties, the Court GRANTS defendant’s motion to dismiss.
V.

CONCLUSION

In accordance with the foregoing, the Court GRANTS defendant’s motion to
dismiss. Plaintiff may file an amended complaint addressing the deficiencies identified
herein on or before May 2, 2018. Failure to do so may result in dismissal with prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
00
Initials of Preparer

CV-6196 (04/18)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

:

00

CMJ

Page 6 of 6