Evanston Insurance Company v. Ronald L. Wolfe & Associates, Inc.

Filing 9

(In Chambers) Order to Show Cause by Judge George H. King: Plaintiff is ORDERED to show cause, in writing, within fourteen days hereof, why this matter should not be dismissed for lack of federal subject matter jurisdiction. Plaintiff's failu re to timely and adequately show cause as required herein shall be deemed Plaintiffs admission that this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. In that event, this action shall be dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Refer to the Court's order for details. (pso)

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

CV 16-6951-GHK (ASx)

Title

Evanston Insurance Company v. Ronald L. Wolfe & Associates, Inc., et al.

Presiding: The Honorable

Date

September 30, 2016

GEORGE H. KING, U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

Paul Songco

N/A

N/A

Deputy Clerk

Court Reporter / Recorder

Tape No.

Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs:

Attorneys Present for Defendants:

(none)

(none)

Proceedings:

(In Chambers) Order to Show Cause

On September 15, 2016, Plaintiff Evanston Insurance Company filed this action against
Defendants Ronald L. Wolfe & Associates, Inc.; Ronald L. Wolfe & Associates, Inc. dba Wolfe &
Associates, Property Services; Stephanie Grace; Lucas Fitch; Ava Hosseini; Jared A. Nicol; Anya
Merkle; and Does 1-20. (Dkt. 1.) Plaintiff claims that we have subject matter jurisdiction over this
action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332, the diversity jurisdiction statute. (Id.) As a court of limited
jurisdiction, see Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994), we must
determine the issue of subject matter jurisdiction before reaching the merits of a case, see Steel Co. v.
Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83, 94 (1998). “When a requirement goes to subject-matter
jurisdiction, courts are obligated to consider sua sponte issues that the parties have disclaimed or have
not presented.” Gonzalez v. Thaler, 132 S. Ct. 641, 648 (2012).
“Jurisdiction founded on 28 U.S.C. § 1332 requires that the parties be in complete diversity and
the amount in controversy exceed $75,000.” Matheson v. Progressive Specialty Ins. Co., 319 F.3d
1089, 1090 (9th Cir. 2003); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). In order to show complete diversity, a
plaintiff must establish that “the citizenship of each plaintiff is diverse from the citizenship of each
defendant.” Caterpillar Inc. v. Lewis, 519 U.S. 61, 62 (1996). Here, the amount-in-controversy
requirement appears to be satisfied, as Plaintiffs specifically alleges that the amount in controversy
exceeds $75,000. (See Compl. ¶ 10.) However, the Complaint fails to set forth facts sufficient to
establish complete diversity of citizenship.
The Complaint states that (1) Plaintiff is a corporation incorporated in Illinois with its principal
place of business in Illinois, (2) Ronald L. Wolfe & Associates, Inc. (“Wolfe”) (which sometimes did
business as Wolfe & Associates, Property Services) “is a corporation duly organized under the laws of
California,” and (3) each of the individual Defendants “is an individual residing in the state of
California.” (Id. ¶¶ 2-8.) These allegations are insufficient to establish the citizenship of Defendants.
First, Plaintiff has not properly alleged Wolfe’s citizenship. A corporation, like Wolfe, is a
citizen “of (1) the state where its principal place of business is located, and (2) the state in which it is
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 1 of 2

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

CV 16-6951-GHK (ASx)

Date

Title

September 30, 2016

Evanston Insurance Company v. Ronald L. Wolfe & Associates, Inc., et al.

incorporated.” Johnson v. Columbia Props. Anchorage, LP, 437 F.3d 894, 899 (9th Cir. 2006); see also
28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1). While Plaintiff alleges that Wolfe is incorporated in California, Plaintiff does
not allege Wolfe’s principal place of business.
Second, Plaintiff has not properly alleged the individual Defendants’ citizenship because a
person’s residency does not determine citizenship for diversity jurisdiction purposes. A person is a
citizen of the state of domicile, i.e., where the person “resides with the intention to remain or to which
[he or] she intends to return.” Kanter v. Warner-Lambert Co., 265 F.3d 853, 857 (9th Cir. 2001).
Because Plaintiff has failed to allege Defendants’ citizenship, we are unable to determine
whether the Parties are completely diverse for purposes of § 1332. Therefore, no basis for subject
matter jurisdiction is evident from Plaintiff’s Complaint. The party asserting jurisdiction bears the
burden of establishing such jurisdiction. Kokkonen, 511 U.S. at 377. Accordingly, Plaintiff is
ORDERED to show cause, in writing, within fourteen days hereof, why this matter should not be
dismissed for lack of federal subject matter jurisdiction. Plaintiff’s failure to timely and adequately
show cause as required herein shall be deemed Plaintiff’s admission that this Court lacks subject matter
jurisdiction. In that event, this action shall be dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
:
Initials of Deputy Clerk

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

PS

Page 2 of 2