Worldhaus Construction PVT LTD v. BMCI, Inc et al

Filing 10

MINUTES (In Chambers) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE Regarding Subject Matter Jurisdiction by Judge Kenly Kiya Kato. Accordingly, Plaintiff is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE in writing why this action should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Plaintiff shall file a response to this Order no later than seven days from the date of this Order. (See document for further information). (aco)

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

EDCV 24-01802-KK-Ex

Date: August 30, 2024

Title: Worldhaus Construction PVT LTD v. BMCI, Inc., et al.

Present: The Honorable KENLY KIYA KATO, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Noe Ponce

Not Reported

Deputy Clerk

Court Reporter

Attorney(s) Present for Plaintiff(s):

Attorney(s) Present for Defendant(s):

None Present

None Present

Proceedings:

(In Chambers) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE Regarding Subject Matter
Jurisdiction

On August 23, 2024, plaintiff Worldhaus Construction PVT LTD (“Plaintiff”) filed a
Complaint against defendant BMCI, Inc. and Scott Barsotti (“Defendants”), asserting diversity
jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332. ECF Docket No. (“Dkt.”) 1, Compl.
Federal courts are courts of “limited jurisdiction” which “possess only that power authorized
by Constitution and statute[.]” Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377
(1994). Thus, a federal court has “an independent obligation to determine whether subject-matter
jurisdiction exists,” and may raise the issue “on its own initiative, at any stage in the litigation[.]”
Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 506, 514 (2006). The party asserting federal jurisdiction bears
the burden of proving jurisdiction exists. Me. Cmty. Health Options v. Albertsons Cos., 993 F.3d
720, 723 (9th Cir. 2021).
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a), a federal district court has original jurisdiction over a civil action
where the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, and there is complete diversity of citizenship
between the parties. Complete diversity requires each plaintiff to be of a different citizenship than
each defendant. Grancare, LLC v. Thrower, 889 F.3d 543, 548 (9th Cir. 2018) (citing Caterpillar Inc.
v. Lewis, 519 U.S. 61, 68 (1996)). An individual is a citizen of the state where they are domiciled.
See Kantor v. Wellesley Galleries, Ltd., 704 F.2d 1088, 1090 (9th Cir. 1983).
Here, Plaintiff has not adequately alleged the citizenship of individual defendant Barsotti.
While Plaintiff alleges defendant Barsotti “is a resident of San Bernardino County, California”
Compl. ¶ 3, this allegation is insufficient to establish citizenship for purposes of diversity
Page 1 of 2

CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL

Initials of Deputy Clerk NP

jurisdiction, see Kanter v. Warner-Lambert Co., 265 F.3d 853, 857-58 (9th Cir. 2001) (“[A] natural
person’s state citizenship is [] determined by her state of domicile, not her state of residence.”).
Accordingly, Plaintiff is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE in writing why this action
should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Plaintiff shall file a response to this
Order no later than seven days from the date of this Order.
Plaintiff is expressly warned that failure to timely file a response to this Order will
result in this action being dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction
and/or failure to prosecute and comply with court orders. See Arbaugh, 546 U.S. at 514; FED.
R. CIV. P. 41(b).
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Page 2 of 2

CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL

Initials of Deputy Clerk NP