Hall v. Regal Entertainment Group

Filing 22

ORDER to SHOW CAUSE RE: Subject Matter Jurisdiction signed by Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean on 10/28/2015. Show Cause Hearing set for 12/2/2015 at 09:30 AM in Courtroom 10 (EPG) before Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean. (Martinez, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

JAMES E. HALL,

12
13
14
15

Case No. 1:15-cv-01005-EPG
Plaintiff,

v.

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: SUBJECT
MATTER JURISDICTION

REGAL ENTERTAINMENT GROUP,
Defendant.

16
17

On July 2, 2015, Plaintiff James Hall (“Plaintiff”) filed a Complaint. (ECF No. 1.) The

18

Complaint alleged a single claim for negligence on the part of Defendant Regal Entertainment

19

Group (“Defendant”) and asserted that the Court had diversity jurisdiction over the matter under

20

28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) because Plaintiff is a resident of Washington and Defendant is a business

21

entity headquartered in Tennessee. The Complaint does not contain any allegations concerning

22

the specific amount in controversy in Plaintiff’s claim. On October 27, 2015, the Court conducted

23
an Initial Scheduling Conference. Counsel for both parties appeared telephonically. The parties
24
25
26
27

expressed uncertainty as to the amount in controversy in the present action.
“Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3) provides that a court may raise the question of
subject matter jurisdiction, sua sponte, at any time during the pendency of the action, even on

28
1

1

appeal.” Snell v. Cleveland, Inc., 316 F.3d 822, 826 (9th Cir. 2002), citing Summers v. Interstate

2

Tractor & Equip. Co., 466 F.2d 42, 49-50 (9th Cir. 1972). The “party invoking the federal court’s

3

jurisdiction has the burden of proving the actual existence of subject matter jurisdiction.”

4
Thompson v. McCombe, 99 F.3d 352, 353 (9th Cir. 1996), citing Trentacosta v. Frontier Pac.
5
6
7

Aircraft Indus., Inc., 813 F.2d 1553, 1559 (9th Cir. 1987).
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a), a federal court’s subject matter jurisdiction only arises “where

8

the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000 . . . and is between . . . (1) citizens

9

of different States . . .” Plaintiff’s Complaint does not allege that the matter in controversy

10

exceeds the sum or value of $75,000. And although it alleges that Plaintiff is a resident of

11
12
13
14
15

Washington, the “diversity jurisdiction statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1332, speaks of citizenship, not of
residency.” Kanter v. Warner-Lambert Co., 265 F.3d 853, 857 (9th Cir. 2001), citing NewmanGreen, Inc. v. Alfonzo-Larrain, 490 U.S. 826, 828 (1989). Based on the facts alleged in the
Complaint, the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this case.

16
17
18
19

ORDER
Accordingly, Plaintiff James Hall is ORDERED to appear on December 2, 2015, at 9:30
a.m., in Courtroom 10, to show cause why his case should not be dismissed for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction. Plaintiff shall file, no later than November 25, 2015, either: (1) an amended

20
21

complaint properly alleging the basis of this Court’s subject matter jurisdiction; or (2) a response

22

to the Order to Show Cause otherwise demonstrating the basis for the Court’s subject matter

23

jurisdiction. The Court has set another scheduling conference at this same date and time.

24

\\

25

\\

26

\\

27
\\
28
2

1

Accordingly, Plaintiff shall also appear at the scheduling conference that is set for

2

December 2, 2015, at 9:30 a.m., in Courtroom 10. Plaintiff is cautioned that failure to respond

3

to this Order to Show Cause may result in the dismissal of this action.

4
5
6
7
8

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

October 28, 2015

/s/
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3