Stephanie Himonidis et al v. Spanish Broadcasting System of California, Inc. et al
Filing
11
(IN CHAMBERS) AMENDED ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE by Judge George H. King. Plaintiffs are ORDERED to show cause, in writing, within fourteen days hereof, why this matter should not be dismissed for lack of federal subject matter jurisdiction. Plaintiffs fa ilure 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 16-6953-GHK (JCx)
Title
Stephanie Himonidis, et al. v. Spanish Broadcasting System of California, Inc., et al.
Presiding: The Honorable
Date
October 11, 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) AMENDED Order to Show Cause
On September 15, 2016, Plaintiffs Stephanie Himonidis and Gerardo Lopez filed this action
against Defendants Spanish Broadcasting System of California, Inc. (“SBS”) and Does 1-10. (Dkt. 1.)
Plaintiffs claim 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 request at least $3,000,000 in general and special
damages. (See Compl., Prayer for Relief ¶ 3.) However, the Complaint fails to set forth facts sufficient
to establish complete diversity of citizenship.
The Complaint states that Plaintiffs are residents of California and that SBS is a “Delaware
corporation authorized to conduct and conducting substantial business in the County of Los Angeles,
State of California.” (Compl. ¶¶ 5-7.) Plaintiffs also allege that SBS “is a citizen of the State of Florida
or other non-California state.” (Id. ¶ 2.) Plaintiffs have insufficiently alleged their and SBS’s
citizenship.
First, Plaintiffs have not properly alleged their 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.”
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Page 1 of 2
E-Filed
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.
CV 16-6953-GHK (JCx)
Date
October 11, 2016
Title
Stephanie Himonidis, et al. v. Spanish Broadcasting System of California, Inc., et al.
Kanter v. Warner-Lambert Co., 265 F.3d 853, 857 (9th Cir. 2001). Because allegations concerning
residency are insufficient to establish citizenship, Plaintiffs have not met their burden of establishing
their citizenship.
Second, Plaintiffs have not properly alleged SBS’s citizenship. A corporation, like SBS, is a
citizen “of (1) the state where its principal place of business is located, and (2) the state in which it is
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 Plaintiffs allege that SBS is incorporated in Delaware, it is not clear
where SBS has its principal place of business. The allegation that SBS is a “citizen of the State of
Florida” says nothing about whether Florida is SBS’s principal place of business. Without alleging both
SBS’s state of incorporation and principal place of business, SBS’s citizenship is not apparent from the
Complaint.
Because Plaintiffs have failed to allege both their and SBS’s 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 Plaintiffs’ Complaint. The party asserting jurisdiction bears
the burden of establishing such jurisdiction. Kokkonen, 511 U.S. at 377. Accordingly, Plaintiffs are
ORDERED to show cause, in writing, within fourteen days hereof, why this matter should not be
dismissed for lack of federal subject matter jurisdiction. Plaintiffs’ failure 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.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
:
Initials of Deputy Clerk
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
PS
Page 2 of 2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?