David Lee Pace v. FFE et al

Filing 8

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE by Judge Gary A. Feess. FFE is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE why this case should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Defendant FFEs response is due by the close of business on Friday, February 7, 2014. Failure to respond will be deemed consent to dismissal of the action. See document for details. (smo)

LINK: 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Case No.

EDCV 13-02304 GAF (SPx)

Title

David Lee Pace v. FFE et al

Present: The Honorable

Date

January 8, 2014

GARY ALLEN FEESS

Stephen Montes Kerr
Deputy Clerk

None
Court Reporter / Recorder

N/A
Tape No.

Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs:

Attorneys Present for Defendants:

None

None

Proceedings:

(In Chambers)
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

On September 12, 2013, Plaintiff David Lee Pace (“Plaintiff”) filed suit against
Defendants FFE Transportation Services, Inc. (“FFE”), American Eagle Line, UC Express, and
Conwell LLC (collectively, “Defendants”), in the Superior Court for the County of San
Bernardino. On December 16, 2013, Defendant FFE timely removed the case to federal court,
invoking this Court’s diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332. (Docket No. 1, [Not.
of Removal (“Not.”)] at 2.) However, the Court is unable to determine whether it has
jurisdiction over this matter because FFE’s jurisdictional allegations are deficient.
Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, and the burden of establishing
jurisdiction rests upon the party asserting it. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. Of Am., 511
U.S. 375, 377 (1994). Diversity jurisdiction exists where the amount in controversy exceeds
$75,000 and the matter is between citizens of different states. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). “Diversity
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 requires complete diversity, i.e. every plaintiff must be
diverse from every defendant.” Osborn v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 341 F. Supp. 2d 1123,
1126 (E.D. Cal. 2004). Allegations of residence are insufficient to establish jurisdiction.
Instead, citizenship is determined by a person’s domicile—“[his] permanent home, where [he]
resides with the intention to remain or to which [he] intends to return.” Kanter v. WarnerLambert Co., 265 F.2d 853, 857–58 (9th Cir. 2001). Additionally, a corporation is a “citizen of
any State by which it has been incorporated and of the State where it has its principal place of
business.” 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) (emphasis added).
FFE alleges that diversity jurisdiction exists because this is a civil action between citizens
of different states, and the matter in controversy exceeds $75,000. (Not. at 2.) However, the
Notice only lists FFE’s principal place of business, not the state of its incorporation. (Id.) It has
CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 1 of 2

LINK: 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Case No.

EDCV 13-02304 GAF (SPx)

Title

Date

January 8, 2014

David Lee Pace v. FFE et al

therefore failed to show proper citizenship of all parties, and it is unclear if the diversity
requirement is met.
Accordingly, FFE is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE why this case should not be
dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Defendant FFE’s response is due by the close
of business on Friday, February 7, 2014. Failure to respond will be deemed consent to
dismissal of the action.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 2 of 2