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