C.G. v. Hain Celestial Group Inc. et al

Filing 24

[NOTICE OF CLERICAL ERROR ISSUED DATED ON 2/6/2024, SEE DOCKET ENTRY NO. #25 ] - MINUTE (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER Dismissing Action Without Prejudice for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction by Judge Fred W. Slaughter: The court therefore DISMISSES this case without prejudice as to any action filed in state court. (Made JS-6. Case Terminated.) See document for further information. (jp). Modified on 2/6/2024 (jp).

_____________________________________________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JS-6

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
Case No.: 8:24-cv-00186-FWS-DFM
Title: Tameka Renee Crosland v. Baron Silverstein et al.

Date: February 6, 2024

Present: HONORABLE FRED W. SLAUGHTER, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Melissa H. Kunig
Deputy Clerk
Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs:
Not Present

N/A
Court Reporter
Attorneys Present for Defendants:
Not Present

PROCEEDINGS: (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER DISMISSING ACTION WITHOUT
PREJUDICE FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION
Plaintiff Tameka Renee Crosland (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se, instituted the aboveentitled action in this court on January 26, 2024. Because the court lacks subject matter
jurisdiction over this case, the court DISMISSES the case without prejudice as to any action
filed in state court.
Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction with subject matter jurisdiction over only
those suits authorized by the Constitution or Congress. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co.,
511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). Federal courts have an “independent obligation to determine
whether subject-matter jurisdiction exists, even in the absence of a challenge from any party,”
Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 501 (2006), and “may raise the question of subject
matter jurisdiction, sua sponte, at any time during the pendency of the action,” Snell v.
Cleveland, Inc., 316 F.3d 822, 826 (9th Cir. 2002) (citation omitted).
“In civil cases, subject matter jurisdiction is generally conferred upon federal district
courts either through diversity jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1332, or federal question jurisdiction,
28 U.S.C. § 1331.” Peralta v. Hispanic Bus., Inc., 419 F.3d 1064, 1069 (9th Cir. 2005). Under
§ 1331, federal courts “have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the
Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331; see also Negrete v. City
of Oakland, 46 F.4th 811, 816 (9th Cir. 2022). Cases “‘aris[e] under’ federal law in two ways.”
_____________________________________________________________________________
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
1

_____________________________________________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
Case No.: 8:24-cv-00186-FWS-DFM
Title: Tameka Renee Crosland v. Baron Silverstein et al.

Date: February 6, 2024

Gunn v. Minton, 568 U.S. 251, 257 (2013). First, and “[m]ost directly, a case arises under
federal law when federal law creates the cause of action asserted.” Id. (citation omitted).
Second, there is a “‘special and small category’ of cases” in which “federal jurisdiction over a
state law claim will lie if a federal issue is: (1) necessarily raised, (2) actually disputed, (3)
substantial, and (4) capable of resolution in federal court without disrupting the federal-state
balance approved by Congress.” Id. at 258 (citation omitted).
Federal courts have diversity jurisdiction under § 1332 over actions between citizens of
different states in which the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. 28 U.S.C. § 1332; see
also Matheson v. Progressive Specialty Ins. Co., 319 F.3d 1089, 1090 (9th Cir. 2003).
Diversity jurisdiction “applies only to cases in which the citizenship of each plaintiff is diverse
from the citizenship of each defendant.” Caterpillar Inc. v. Lewis, 519 U.S. 61, 68 (1996). A
natural person’s citizenship is determined by their state of domicile, which is that individual’s
“permanent home, where [they] reside[] with the intention to remain or to which [they] intend[]
to return.” Kanter v. Warner-Lambert Co., 265 F.3d 853, 857 (9th Cir. 2001) (citation omitted).
However, “[i]n cases where entities rather than individuals are litigants, diversity jurisdiction
depends on the form of the entity.” Johnson v. Columbia Props. Anchorage, LP, 437 F.3d 894,
899 (9th Cir. 2006). “[A]n unincorporated association such as a partnership has the citizenships
of all of its members.” Id. (citation omitted); see also Carden v. Arkoma Assocs., 494 U.S. 185,
195-96 (1990) (holding a limited partnership is a citizen of every state of which its general and
limited partners are citizens). Limited liability companies “resemble both partnerships and
corporations” but, “like a partnership, an LLC is a citizen of every state which its
owners/members are citizens.” Johnson, 437 F.3d 894, 899. In determining the citizenship(s)
of an artificial entity, the court must consider the citizenships of all its members. Carden, 494
U.S. at 195-96. However, a corporation is only a citizen of (1) the state in which its principal
place of business is located, and (2) the state in which it is incorporated. 28 U.S.C.
§ 1332(c)(1); see also Hertz Corp. v. Friend, 559 U.S. 77, 92-93 (2010); 3123 SMB LLC v.
Horn, 880 F.3d 461, 468 (9th Cir. 2018).
While the Complaint does not expressly invoke a basis for the court’s subject matter
jurisdiction, it appears to rely on diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 based on its
allegations of the parties’ citizenships, statement of the amount in controversy, and exclusive
_____________________________________________________________________________
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
2

_____________________________________________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
Case No.: 8:24-cv-00186-FWS-DFM
Title: Tameka Renee Crosland v. Baron Silverstein et al.

Date: February 6, 2024

reliance on state law claims. (See Dkt. 1 ¶¶ 1-14.) However, both Plaintiff and several
Defendants are allegedly citizens of the same state, California. (Id. ¶¶ 2, 6-9.) The parties are
therefore not completely diverse from each other. See Caterpillar, 519 U.S. at 68.
Consequently, the court lacks diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332.
The court also lacks federal question jurisdiction predicated on 28 U.S.C. § 1331. As
noted, Plaintiff exclusively brings claims against Defendants under state law. (See Dkt. 1.) As
pleaded, these claims do not “establish[] either that federal law creates the cause[s] of action or
that [Plaintiff’s] right to relief necessarily depends on resolution of a substantial question of
federal law.” See Empire Healthchoice Assur., Inc. v. McVeigh, 547 U.S. 677, 690 (2006)
(quoting Franchise Tax Bd. of Cal. v. Constr. Laborers Vacation Tr. for S. Cal., 463 U.S. 1, 2728 (1983)). The court thus lacks federal question jurisdiction over this action under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1331.
Because the court lacks both diversity and federal question jurisdiction over this case and
no other basis for the court’s subject matter jurisdiction is apparent from the face of the
Complaint, the court concludes it lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this case. The court
therefore “must dismiss the action.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3); see also Scholastic Ent., Inc. v.
Fox Ent. Grp., Inc., 336 F.3d 982, 985 (9th Cir. 2003). The court therefore DISMISSES this
case without prejudice as to any action filed in state court. See Freeman v. Oakland Unified
Sch. Dist., 179 F.3d 846, 847 (9th Cir. 1999) (instructing dismissals for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction should be “without prejudice to [the action] being re-filed in a court of competent
jurisdiction”).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Initials of Deputy Clerk: mku

_____________________________________________________________________________
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
3