Golden v. Sound Inpatient Physicians Medical Group, Inc. et al

Filing 13

ORDER signed by Judge Lawrence K. Karlton on 3/31/14 DISMISSING the complaint with leave to amend within 30 days. 8 and 10 Motions to Dismiss and 11 Motion to Compel are DENIED as moot. (Manzer, C)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

OTASHE GOLDEN, M.D.,

12

15
16
17

CIV. S-14-497 LKK/EFB

Plaintiff,

13
14

No.

v.

ORDER

SOUND INPATIENT PHYSICIANS
MEDICAL GROUP, INC.; DAMERON
HOSPITAL ASSOCIATION, a
California Non-Profit
Association; NICHOLAS
ARISMENDI, an individual and
DOES 1-10, inclusive,

18

Defendants.

19
Plaintiff has filed a Complaint alleging state law claims,

20
21

with federal jurisdiction predicated upon diversity jurisdiction.

22

ECF No. 1 ¶ 1.

23

that “the Plaintiff is a resident of a different state from the

24

Defendant [sic] and because the value of the matter in

25

controversy exceeds $75,000.”

26

the specific facts that would allow this court to determine if

27

diversity jurisdiction exists.

28

////

However, the sole jurisdictional allegations are

Id.

1

The Complaint does not allege

1

Specifically, the Complaint fails to allege (1) the

2

plaintiff’s State citizenship, (2) the principal place of

3

business of defendant Dameron Hospital Association, (3) the place

4

of incorporation and the principal place of business of Sound

5

Inpatient Physicians Medical Group, Inc., and (4) defendant

6

Arismendi’s State citizenship.1

7

Lambert Co., 265 F.3d 853, 858 (9th Cir. 2001) (in a removal

8

case, the “failure to specify Plaintiffs' state citizenship was

9

fatal” to the assertion of diversity jurisdiction); Nelson v.

See, e.g., Kanter v. Warner-

10

Matrixx Initiatives, Inc., 2012 WL 1094316 at *2 (N.D. Cal. 2012)

11

(Alsup, J.) (“In his first amended complaint, plaintiff must

12

allege defendant Matrixx's state of incorporation and the state

13

where it has its principal place of business”) (citing 28 U.SC.

14

§ 1332(c)(1)).

15

Accordingly,

16

1.

17

The court, sua sponte, DISMISSES the Complaint with

leave to amend within 30 days from the date of this order; and

18

2.

All pending motions to dismiss the Complaint and to

19

compel arbitration (ECF Nos. 8, 10 & 11), are hereby DENIED as

20

moot.

21

IT IS SO ORDERED.

22

DATED:

March 31, 2014.

23
1

24
25
26
27

The court notes that there are three defendants, not just the
unspecified one referred to in the Complaint’s jurisdictional
statement, raising the issue of whether complete diversity
exists. See In re Digimarc Corp. Derivative Litigation, 549 F.3d
1223, 1234 (9th Cir. 2008) (“Diversity jurisdiction requires
complete diversity between the parties — each defendant must be a
citizen of a different state from each plaintiff”).

28
2