Meraz-Valencia v. Westlake Royal Roofing, LLC
Filing
32
ORDER to SHOW CAUSE signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 11/17/22 ORDERING plaintiff to show cause within 10 days of the date of entry of this order as to why this case should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. (Kastilahn, A)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
PEDRO MERAZ-VALENCIA,
12
Plaintiff,
13
14
No. 2:22-cv-00491-DAD-AC
v.
WESTLAKE ROYAL ROOFING, LLC,
15
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THIS
CASE SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR
LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER
JURISDICTION
Defendant.
16
17
18
On May 5, 2022, plaintiff filed his operative first amended complaint (“FAC”) against
19
defendant Westlake Royal Roofing, LLC.1 (Doc. No. 13.) As explained below, plaintiff must
20
provide additional information in order for the court to determine it has subject matter jurisdiction
21
over this case or if the case should be dismissed.
“Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction.” Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of
22
23
Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). “[S]ubject matter jurisdiction of the district court is not a
24
waivable matter and may be raised at anytime by one of the parties, by motion or in the
25
responsive pleadings, or sua sponte by the trial or reviewing court.” Emrich v. Touche Ross &
26
Co., 846 F.2d 1190, 1194 n.2 (9th Cir. 1988); see also Henderson ex rel. Henderson v. Shinseki,
27
28
1
Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the FAC on June 20, 2022 (Doc. No. 17) and the court has
specially set that pending motion for hearing on December 8, 2022 (Doc. No. 31).
1
1
562 U.S. 428, 434–35 (2011) (noting objections to subject matter jurisdiction may be raised post-
2
trial). “It is to be presumed that a cause lies outside this limited jurisdiction, and the burden of
3
establishing the contrary rests upon the party asserting jurisdiction.” Kokkonen, 511 U.S. at 377
4
(internal citation omitted). Federal diversity jurisdiction requires that all parties to the action be
5
“citizens of different states” or “citizens or subjects of a foreign state.” 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). “In
6
cases where entities rather than individuals are litigants, diversity jurisdiction depends on the
7
form of the entity.” Johnson v. Columbia Props. Anchorage, LP, 437 F.3d 894, 899 (9th Cir.
8
2006). For example, “a corporation is a citizen only of (1) the state where its principal place of
9
business is located, and (2) the state in which it is incorporated.” Id. By contrast, “an LLC is a
10
citizen of every state of which its owners/members are citizens.” Id. “Additionally, where the
11
district court has doubts about whether diversity exists, the district court may ‘insist that the
12
jurisdictional facts be established or the case be dismissed, and for that purpose the court may
13
demand that the party alleging jurisdiction justify [its] allegations by a preponderance of
14
evidence.’” Harris v. Rand, 682 F.3d 846, 851 (9th Cir. 2012) (quoting Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980
15
F.2d 564, 567 (9th Cir.1992)).
16
The court has reviewed the FAC wherein plaintiff asserts that this court has subject matter
17
jurisdiction over his claims based solely on diversity jurisdiction. However, as alleged in the
18
FAC, plaintiff was a “resident of the State of California” (not a citizen of California) and
19
defendant “Westlake is a Delaware corporation headquartered in Irvine, California.” (Doc. No.
20
13 at ¶¶ 4, 6, 9); see Kanter v. Warner-Lambert Co., 265 F.3d 853, 857 (9th Cir. 2001) (holding
21
that alleging a party “resides” in a state without alleging that he or she is a citizen thereof are
22
insufficient to allege the citizenship of that party and are thus fatal to establishing diversity
23
jurisdiction). At the same time, defendant appears to be an LLC, not a corporation, and there are
24
no allegations in plaintiff’s FAC suggesting that any of defendant Westlake Royal Roofing,
25
LLC’s owners/members are diverse from plaintiff (assuming plaintiff is in fact a citizen of
26
California). Thus, the subject matter jurisdiction allegations in plaintiff’s FAC are facially
27
deficient.
28
/////
2
Accordingly, due to the apparent deficiencies in plaintiff’s jurisdictional allegations,
1
2
plaintiff is ordered to show cause within ten (10) days of the date of entry of this order as to
3
why this case should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Plaintiff may
4
respond to this order to show cause by providing sufficient information indicating the full
5
citizenship of plaintiff and defendant’s members/owners (or, if defendant is a corporation,
6
defendant’s state of incorporation and principal place of business) and that the parties in this
7
action are truly diverse. Moreover, although plaintiff does not allege the Class Action Fairness
8
Act (“CAFA”) as a basis for subject matter jurisdiction, the court may have subject jurisdiction
9
on that basis, depending on the amount in controversy and if minimal diversity can be shown. 28
10
U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2). Thus, in the alternative, plaintiff may also respond to this order to show
11
cause by showing that this court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action under CAFA—
12
specifically, that there is over $5 million in controversy and that any plaintiff has diversity of
13
citizenship from any defendant. Id. In the event plaintiff is unable to allege federal subject
14
matter jurisdiction or fails to respond to this order to show cause, plaintiff and his counsel are
15
advised that the FAC will be dismissed.
16
17
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
November 17, 2022
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?