Richard Schluckbier v. Mastec North America Inc et al

Filing 17

MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS TO SHOW CAUSE RE: JURISDICTION by Judge Virginia A. Phillips.( Response to Order to Show Cause due by 12/5/2014.) (mrgo)

PRIORITY SEND
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES -- GENERAL
Case No. EDCV 14-02047-VAP (DTBx)

Date: November 21, 2014

Title:

RICHARD SCHLUCKBIER, AN INDIVIDUAL -v- MASTEC NORTH
AMERICA, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION; WILLIAM F. BOSWELL,
AN INDIVIDUAL; AND DOES 1 THROUGH 50
===============================================================
PRESENT:
HONORABLE VIRGINIA A. PHILLIPS, U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
Marva Dillard
Courtroom Deputy
ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR
PLAINTIFFS:

None Present
Court Reporter
ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR
DEFENDANTS:

None
PROCEEDINGS:

None
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: JURISDICTION (IN
CHAMBERS)

On July 30, 2014, Plaintiff Richard Schluckbier ("Schluckbier") filed a
Complaint in the California Superior Court for the County of San Bernardino against
Defendants Mastec North America, Inc. ("Mastec") and William Boswell ("Boswell").
(Not. of Removal (Doc. No. 1) Ex. A ("Complaint").) In the Complaint, Schluckbier
alleges that he is a resident of Michigan, Mastec is a Florida Corporation with its
principal place of business in California, and Boswell is a resident of South Carolina.
(Compl. ¶¶ 1–3.)
Mastec removed the action to this Court on October 3, 2014. In the Notice of
Removal, Mastec asserts that its principal place of business is Florida, not
California. (See Not. of Removal ¶ 11(b).) Mastec supports this contention with the
MINUTES FORM 11
CIVIL -- GEN

Initials of Deputy Clerk md/wr
Page 1

EDCV 14-02047-VAP (DTBx)
RICHARD SCHLUCKBIER v. MASTEC NORTH AMERICA, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, et al.
MINUTE ORDER of November 21, 2014

Declaration of its Associate General Counsel, Corey Collins. (Declaration of Corey
Collins (Doc. No. 3) ¶¶ 4-6.) It remains unclear whether this Court has subject
matter jurisdiction over the case.
Federal courts have subject matter jurisdiction over controversies between
citizens of different states. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1); Hunter v. Phillip Morris USA, 582
F.3d 1039, 1043 (9th Cir. 2009) (explaining § 1332 requires "complete diversity,"
which means the citizenship of "each plaintiff is different from that of each
defendant"). A corporation is a citizen of the state of its incorporation and the state
where its principal place of business is located. Harris v. Rand, 682 F.3d 846,
850–51 (9th Cir. 2012) (quoting Hertz Corp. v. Friend, 559 U.S. 77 (2010)). An
individual's domicile determines her citizenship. Kanter v. Warner-Lambert Co., 265
F.3d 853, 857 (9th Cir. 2001) "A person's domicile is her permanent home, where
she resides with the intention to remain or to which she intends to return." Id.
In this case, Schluckbier is more likely than not a citizen of Michigan based on
his continuous residence and ongoing medical treatment in that state. Further,
Mastec is more likely than not a citizen of Florida. (See Collins Decl.) Boswell,
however, is only mentioned in passing in any pleading in this case. Both the
Complaint and the Notice of Removal allege Boswell is a "resident" of South
Carolina, which does not establish Boswell's citizenship.
In the Ninth Circuit, an allegation of residency does not support a finding of an
individual's citizenship. See Mondragon v. Capital One Auto Finance, 736F.3d 880,
886 (9th Cir. 2013). Accordingly, the Court ORDERS Mastec to show cause why
this action should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Mastec
shall file a response, in writing, no later than December 5, 2014.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

MINUTES FORM 11
CIVIL -- GEN

Initials of Deputy Clerk md/wr
Page 2