Angela Nails v. Uber

Filing 8

MINUTE IN CHAMBERS) ORDER DISMISSING Action for Lack of Subject-Matter Jurisdiction by Judge Josephine L. Staton: Plaintiff makes no factual allegations about her citizenship or the citizenship of Defendant, and the Court cannot determine that it has jurisdiction over this action. Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES this action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction WITHOUT PREJUDICE to its refiling in a court of competent jurisdiction. (Made JS-6. Case Terminated.) (jp)

JS-6

____________________________________________________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
Case No. 2:23-cv-10729-JLS-ASDate: February 05, 2024
Title: Angela Nails v. Uber

Present: Honorable JOSEPHINE L. STATON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Gabby Garcia
Deputy Clerk
ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR PLAINTIFF:
Not Present

N/A
Court Reporter
ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR DEFENDANT:
Not Present

PROCEEDINGS: (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER DISMISSING ACTION FOR LACK
OF SUBJECT-MATTER JURISDICTION
Plaintiff Angela Nails pro se filed a complaint against Defendant Uber. (Compl.,
Doc. 1.) Plaintiff does not specify what claims she asserts; nor does she specify what
basis this Court has for jurisdiction. (See id.) However, Plaintiff’s complaint alleges that
Uber’s conduct violated “State employment Rules.” (Id. at 2. (emphasis added).)
Accordingly, the Court interprets Plaintiff to assert state-law claims and invoke this
Court’s diversity jurisdiction.
“Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction.” Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins.
Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). As the party invoking federal jurisdiction,
Plaintiff has the burden of establishing that this case is within the Court’s jurisdiction.
See id. A federal court has diversity jurisdiction if (1) the parties to the action are citizens
of different states, and (2) the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. 28 U.S.C.
§ 1332(a). In determining the citizenship of a corporation, “a corporation shall be
deemed to be a citizen of every State . . . by which it has been incorporated and of the
State . . . where it has its principal place of business.” Id. § 1332(c)(1).
Here, Plaintiff makes no factual allegations about her citizenship or the citizenship
of Defendant, and the Court cannot determine that it has jurisdiction over this action.
Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES this action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction
WITHOUT PREJUDICE to its refiling in a court of competent jurisdiction.
Initials of Preparer: gga
______________________________________________________________________________
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
1