Robert Ritchie v. Argent Mortgage Company LLC et al

Filing 11

(IN CHAMBERS) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE by Judge Josephine Staton Tucker: Why this Case Should Not be Dismissed for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction: Court orders plaintiff to show cause in writing no later than August 29, 2011 why this action should no t be dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. If plaintiff requires additional discovery to establish the citizenship of one or more defendants, plaintiff may request additional time to engage in jurisdictional discovery, provided that such a request is made on or before the above deadline. Failure to respond by the above date will result in the Court dismissing this action. (rla)

____________________________________________________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
Case No. SACV-11-01106-JST (ANx)
Title: Robert Ritchie v. Argent Mortgage Co., LLC, et al.

Date: August 22, 2011

Present: Honorable JOSEPHINE STATON TUCKER, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Nancy Boehme
Deputy Clerk
ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR PLAINTIFF:

Not Present

N/A
Court Reporter
ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR DEFENDANT:

Not Present

PROCEEDINGS: (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THIS
CASE SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR LACK OF
SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION
This action was filed in this Court on July 25, 2011. However, it appears that the
Court may lack subject matter jurisdiction for the reasons opposite the boxes checked:
[X]

Jurisdiction is asserted on the basis of federal question jurisdiction pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 but it does not appear that any of the claims “arise
under” federal law.

[ ]

Jurisdiction is asserted on the basis of diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1332(a), but all plaintiffs are not diverse from all defendants. See
Strawbridge v. Curtiss, 7 U.S. (3 Cranch) 267, 267 (1806).

[ ]

Jurisdiction is asserted on the basis of diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1332, but the pleadings set forth the residence, rather than the
citizenship, of some of the parties. Diversity is based on citizenship.

[X]

Jurisdiction is asserted on the basis of diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1332, but the pleadings fail to allege the citizenship of some of the
parties.

[X]

Jurisdiction is asserted on the basis of diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1332. A partnership, limited liability company, or other
unincorporated association is joined as a party. The Court must consider

______________________________________________________________________________
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
1

____________________________________________________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
Case No. SACV-11-01106-JST (ANx)
Title: Robert Ritchie v. Argent Mortgage Co., LLC, et al.

Date: August 22, 2011

the citizenship of each of the members or partners, including limited
partners. See generally Carden v. Arkoma Assocs., 494 U.S. 185 (1990)
(partnership); United Steelworkers of Am., AFL-CIO v. R.H. Bouligny, Inc.,
382 U.S. 145 (1965) (labor union); Johnson v. Columbia Props.
Anchorage, LP, 437 F.3d 894 (9th Cir. 2006) (limited liability company);
Rockwell Int’l Credit Corp. v. U.S. Aircraft Ins. Grp., 823 F.2d 302 (9th
Cir. 1987), overruled on other grounds by Partington v. Gedan, 923 F.2d
686, 687 (9th Cir. 1991) (unincorporated association). The citizenship of
each of the entity’s partners or members has not been sufficiently alleged.
[X]

Jurisdiction is asserted on the basis of diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1332. Some of the parties are corporations. The Complaint is
deficient because the Complaint does not state both the respective state(s)
of incorporation and principal place of business. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c).

[ ]

Jurisdiction is asserted on the basis of diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1332, one or more of the parties is named in a representative
capacity, and the citizenship of the represented person is not alleged or
appears not to be diverse. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(2).

[ ]

Jurisdiction is asserted on the basis of diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1332(a), but the matter in controversy does not appear to exceed
$75,000, exclusive of interest and costs.

[ ]

Jurisdiction is asserted on the basis of diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1332(a); the action involves multiple plaintiffs and/or is a class
action. The complaint is deficient because it does not state that at least one
of the named plaintiffs has a claim exceeding $75,000. Where the action
does not implicate a common fund or a joint interest, at least one of the
named plaintiffs must meet the amount in controversy requirement. Exxon
Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Servs., Inc., 545 U.S. 546, 549 (2005). Where
injunctive relief is sought in a multiple plaintiff action, the Ninth Circuit
has held that “the amount in controversy requirement cannot be satisfied
[merely] by showing that the fixed administrative costs of compliance
exceed $75,000.” In re Ford Motor Co., 264 F.3d 952, 961 (9th Cir. 2001).

______________________________________________________________________________
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
2

____________________________________________________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
Case No. SACV-11-01106-JST (ANx)
Title: Robert Ritchie v. Argent Mortgage Co., LLC, et al.

[ ]

Date: August 22, 2011

Jurisdiction is asserted on the basis of diversity jurisdiction in a class action
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d). The complaint is deficient because:
[ ]

the total claims of individual class members do not appear to exceed
$5,000,000 in the aggregate. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2), (5).

[ ]

the pleadings fail to allege that any member of a plaintiff class is a
citizen of a state different from any defendant, that any member of a
plaintiff class is a citizen or subject of a foreign state and any
defendant is a citizen of a state, or that any member of a plaintiff
class is a citizen of a state and any defendant is a citizen or subject of
a foreign state. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2).

[ ]

it appears that the primary defendants are states, state officials, or
other governmental entities. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(5)(A).

[ ]

it appears that the total number of members of all proposed plaintiff
classes is less than 100. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(5)(B).

[ ]

the action appears to involve solely securities claims or claims
relating to corporate governance as described in 28 U.S.C. §
1332(d)(9).

[ ]

the action involves an unincorporated association, but its principal
place of business has not been established. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(10).

[ ]

the action involves an unincorporated association, but its state of
organization has not been established. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(10).

Accordingly, the Court orders plaintiff to show cause in writing no later than
August 29, 2011 why this action should not be dismissed without prejudice for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction. If plaintiff requires additional discovery to establish the
citizenship of one or more defendants, plaintiff may request additional time to engage in
jurisdictional discovery, provided that such a request is made on or before the above
deadline. Failure to respond by the above date will result in the Court dismissing this
action.
______________________________________________________________________________
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
3

____________________________________________________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
Case No. SACV-11-01106-JST (ANx)
Title: Robert Ritchie v. Argent Mortgage Co., LLC, et al.

Date: August 22, 2011

The Court further orders that plaintiff shall promptly serve this minute order on
any defendant who has been served with the Complaint, or who is served before the date
specified above.

Initials of Preparer: nkb

______________________________________________________________________________
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
4