Yeqing Xia et al v. California Investment Immigration Fund, LLC et al
ORDER DISMISSING ACTION FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION by Judge John F. Walter. Accordingly, because there is no jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1332(a)(2) in actions by one foreign subject against another, this action is DISMISSED without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. (SEE DOCUMENT FOR FURTHER DETAILS.) Case Terminated. Made JS-6. (rolm)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES -- GENERAL
Yeqing Xia, et al. -v- California Investment Immigration Fund, LLC, et al.
Date: November 15, 2023
HONORABLE JOHN F. WALTER, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR PLAINTIFFS:
PROCEEDINGS (IN CHAMBERS):
ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR DEFENDANTS:
ORDER DISMISSING ACTION FOR LACK OF
SUBJECT MATTER JURSIDICTION
On December 13, 2022, Plaintiffs Yeqing Xia, Rui Zhang, Song Yao Li, and Ting Li
(collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed a Complaint in this Court against Defendants California Investment
Immigration Fund, LLC, Victoria Chan, Tat Chan, and Fang Zeng (collectively, “Defendants”),
alleging the following claims for relief: (1) intentional misrepresentation; (2) negligent
misrepresentation; (3) fraudulent concealment; (4) breach of implied covenant of good faith and
fair dealing; (5) breach of fiduciary duty; (6) conversion; (7) intentional infliction of emotional
distress; (8) negligent infliction of emotional distress; (9) breach of written agreement; (10)
professional negligence; and (11) common count (money had and received). Plaintiffs claim that
this Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (diversity). See Civil Cover
Sheet (Docket No. 1-1).
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3) specifically states that “[i]f the court determines at
any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action.” Fed. R. Civ. P.
12(h)(3). Pursuant to Rule 12(h)(3), “a court may raise the question of subject matter jurisdiction,
sua sponte, at any time during the pendency of the action, even on appeal.” Snell v. Cleveland,
Inc., 316 F.3d 822, 826 (9th Cir. 2002); see also Emerich v. Touche Ross & Co., 846 F.2d 1190,
1194 n. 2 (9th Cir. 1988) (noting that "[i]t is elementary that the subject matter jurisdiction of the
district court is not a waivable matter and may be raised at anytime by one of the parties, by
motion or in the responsive pleadings, or sua sponte by the trial or reviewing court").
As relevant here, 28 U.S.C. §1332(a) provides that “[t]he district courts shall have original
jurisdiction of all civil actions where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000,
exclusive of interest and costs, and is between . . . citizens of a State and citizens or subjects of a
foreign state . . .” However, there is no jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(2) in actions by
one foreign subject against another, even if there is a citizen defendant present. Faysound, Ltd. v.
Page 1 of 2
Initials of Deputy Clerk sr
United Coconut Chemicals, Inc., 878 F.2d 290, 294-95 (9th Cir.1989).
As alleged in the Complaint, Plaintiffs’ Notice of Interested Parties (Docket No. 9), and
Plaintiffs' Civil Cover Sheet (Docket No. 1-1), Plaintiffs are all citizens of China, and at least one
defendant is a citizen of China. See Complaint ¶1 (alleging Plaintiffs are residents of China); Notice
of Interested Parties (alleging that all Plaintiffs are citizens of China); Complaint ¶ 5 (alleging that
Fang Zeng is a Chinese national, who will contend she is a citizen of China, but who legally resides
in the United States);1 Plaintiffs' Civil Cover Sheet (noting that a defendant is a citizen or subject of
a foreign country).
Accordingly, because there is no jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(2) in actions
by one foreign subject against another, this action is DISMISSED without prejudice for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
“[A]lienage or diversity jurisdiction does not extend to cases involving one alien suing
another alien, even if one of them is domiciled in the U.S. . . . The Court [ ] reads § 1332(a)(2) as
treating a foreign citizen permanently admitted for residency in the U.S. as a citizen for purposes of
destroying jurisdiction, but not creating it.” Alexanian v. FCA US, LLC, 2020 WL 949071, at *2
(S.D. Cal. Feb. 27, 2020)
Page 2 of 2
Initials of Deputy Clerk sr
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?