Mission et al v. Polimeno et al

Filing 12

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE Order to Show Cause Hearing set for 1/31/2013 10:00 AM. Show Cause Response due by 1/17/2013.. Signed by Judge Maria-Elena James on 1/9/2013. (cdnS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/9/2013)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

Northern District of California

7
8

HAKAM SINGH MISSON, an individual, and
SIMRAT KAUR MISSON, an individual,

9

No. C 12-6359 MEJ
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Plaintiffs,
10

v.
ENRICO JOHN POLIMENO, et al.,

12
For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11

Defendants.
_____________________________________/

13
14

Plaintiffs Hakam Singh Misson and Simrat Kaur Misson filed this case on December 14,

15

2012, with 16 state law causes of action related to a real estate transaction in San Joaquin County.

16

Dkt. No. 1. Plaintiffs allege that diversity jurisdiction exists in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

17

1332. However, based on the allegations in the Complaint, it appears that Plaintiffs and all but one

18

of the named Defendants are residents of California. Compl. at 2-3. In order for diversity

19

jurisdiction to exist, there must be complete diversity between all plaintiffs and all defendants.

20

Owen Equip. & Erection Co. v. Kroger, 437 U.S. 365, 373 (1978). Thus, as diversity jurisdiction

21

does not appear to exist and there are no federal causes of action, it appears that this case is not

22

properly in federal court and should instead have been filed in state court. Accordingly, the Court

23

hereby ORDERS Plaintiffs Hakam Singh Misson and Simrat Kaur Misson to show cause why this

24

case should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Plaintiffs shall file a declaration by January 17,

25

2013. If a responsive declaration is filed, the Court shall either issue an order based on the

26

declaration or conduct a hearing on January 31, 2013 at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom B, 15th Floor, 450

27

Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, California. Notice is hereby provided to Plaintiffs that the

28

Court may dismiss the case without a hearing if no responsive declaration is filed. Thus, it is

1

imperative that Plaintiffs file a written response by the deadline above. Alternatively, Plaintiffs may

2

choose to file a notice of voluntary dismissal without prejudice and re-file this case in state court.

3

IT IS SO ORDERED.

4
5

Dated: January 9, 2013
_______________________________
Maria-Elena James
United States Magistrate Judge

6
7
8
9
10

12
For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2