Williams et al v. County of Kern

Filing 36

ORDER OF DISMISSAL. Signed by Judge Jon S. Tigar on October 15, 2013. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(wsn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/15/2013)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

LACHANA WILLIAMS, et al.,

Case No. 13-cv-00508-JST

Plaintiffs,
8
v.

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

9
10

COUNTY OF KERN,
Defendant.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

On October 7, 2013, this Court severed Plaintiffs’ claims against the United States

13

Department of Agriculture and transferred them to the Court of Federal Claims. ECF No. 30.

14

Consequently, the only claims remaining in this action are Plaintiffs’ state law claims against the

15

Kern County Fire Department.

16

Although Plaintiff Rupert Williams has variously given his residence as Florida, New

17

Jersey, and California, at a case management conference held October 11, 2013, he asserted

18

unequivocally that he is a resident of Richmond, California. That is consistent with the Court's

19

electronic docket, which lists Mr. Williams' address as Richmond, California, as well as with the

20

Court's prior Certificates of Service. See ECF No. 8. The Court finds Mr. Williams is therefore a

21

citizen of the State of California.

22
23
24

Defendant Kern County Fire Department is also a citizen of the State of California, as it is
a California county.
Because Plaintiffs’ claims sound in state law, the only potential basis of federal subject

25

matter jurisdiction is diversity of citizenship. The general diversity statute, however, applies only

26

when there is complete diversity, i.e., "only to cases in which the citizenship of each plaintiff is

27

diverse from the citizenship of each defendant." Caterpillar Inc. v. Lewis, 519 U.S. 61, 68

28

(1996). Because Rupert Williams and the Kern County Fire Department are both citizens of

1

California, complete diversity is not present. Accordingly, the Court lacks subject matter

2

jurisdiction over this matter.

3
4
5
6
7
8

Consequently, this action is hereby DISMISSED for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
The Clerk shall close the case file.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 15, 2013
______________________________________
JON S. TIGAR
United States District Judge

9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2