Angel Francisco Alfaro v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company

Filing 17

MINUTE ORDER (IN CHAMBERS) DISMISSING CASE by Judge Percy Anderson. Case Terminated. Made JS-6. (rne)

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

EDCV 14-1998 PA (DTBx)

Title

Angel Francisco Alfaro v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.

Present: The
Honorable

Date

November 4, 2014

PERCY ANDERSON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

R. Neal for Julieta Lozano

Not Reported

N/A

Deputy Clerk

Court Reporter

Tape No.

Attorneys Present for Plaintiff:

Attorneys Present for Defendant:

None

None

Proceedings:

IN CHAMBERS - COURT ORDER

Before the Court is a Complaint filed by plaintiff Angel Francisco Alfaro (“Plaintiff”) on
September 25, 2014. Plaintiff asserts that this Court has jurisdiction over his action against State Farm
Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (“Defendant”) based on the Court’s diversity jurisdiction.
As a preliminary matter, although Plaintiff apparently plans to move to certify a class, he makes
no attempt in the Complaint to establish jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act. (Complaint ¶
2.) For example, the Complaint does not include any allegations regarding the citizenship of other
members of the putative class or suggesting that the amount in controversy exceeds $5,000,000. See 28
U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2).
Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, having subject matter jurisdiction only over
matters authorized by the Constitution and Congress. See, e.g., Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co.,
511 U.S. 375, 377, 114 S. Ct. 1673, 1675, 128 L. Ed. 2d 391 (1994). To invoke this Court’s diversity
jurisdiction, Plaintiff must allege that there is complete diversity of citizenship between the parties and
that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. 28 U.S.C. § 1332. To establish citizenship for
diversity purposes, a natural person must be a citizen of the United States and be domiciled in a
particular state. Kantor v. Wellesley Galleries, Ltd., 704 F.2d 1088, 1090 (9th Cir. 1983). Persons are
domiciled in the places they reside with the intent to remain or to which they intend to return. See
Kanter v. Warner-Lambert Co., 265 F.3d 853, 857 (9th Cir. 2001). “A person residing in a given state is
not necessarily domiciled there, and thus is not necessarily a citizen of that state.” Id. For the purposes
of diversity jurisdiction, a corporation is a citizen of any state where it is incorporated and of the state
where it has its principal place of business. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c); see also Indus. Tectonics, Inc. v. Aero
Alloy, 912 F.2d 1090, 1092 (9th Cir. 1990).
The Complaint alleges that “Plaintiff is an individual who at all relevant times herein alleged,
has resided in the City of Ontario in the State of California.” (Complaint ¶ 4.) The Complaint does not
refer to Plaintiff’s citizenship or place of domicile. Because an individual is not necessarily domiciled
where he or she resides, Plaintiff has not alleged that he is a citizen of California. See Kanter, 265 F.3d
at 857. “Absent unusual circumstances, a party seeking to invoke diversity jurisdiction should be able
CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 1 of 2

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

EDCV 14-1998 PA (DTBx)

Title

Date

November 4, 2014

Angel Francisco Alfaro v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.

to allege affirmatively the actual citizenship of the relevant parties.” Id.; Bradford v. Mitchell Bros.
Truck Lines, 217 F. Supp. 525, 527 (N.D. Cal. 1963).
Moreover, although Plaintiff asserts that “the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000”
(Complaint ¶ 2), the Complaint’s factual allegations suggest that the amount in controversy falls well
short of $75,000. “[A] formal allegation [that the amount in controversy requirement is satisfied] is
sufficient, unless the bill contains others which qualify or detract from it in such measure that when all
are considered together it cannot fairly be said that jurisdiction appears on the face of the complaint, in
which case the suit should be dismissed by the court sua sponte or upon the defendant's motion.”
KVOS, Inc. v. Associated Press, 299 U.S. 269, 277, 57 S. Ct. 197, 200, 81 L. Ed. 183 (1936). Here,
Plaintiff’s claims arise from a transaction in which he received $4,380.00 from Defendant and his
attorney subsequently reimbursed $2,920.00 to Defendant. (Complaint ¶¶ 10-11.) Based on the alleged
facts, Plaintiff cannot satisfy the amount in controversy requirement unless punitive damages exceed
Plaintiff’s alleged general and special damages many times over.
For the reasons stated above, Plaintiff’s Complaint does not allege facts sufficient to establish
this Court’s diversity jurisdiction. The Court therefore dismisses the Complaint without prejudice for
lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 2 of 2