SYNNEX Corporation v. Freeman et al

Filing 11

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE: Plaintiff must amend its complaint to plead an adequate basis for diversity jurisdiction, or show cause in writing why this action should not be dismissed for lack of federal subject matter jurisdiction by 7/16/2014. Plaintiff must also file its consent or declination to proceed before a magistrate judge by 7/16/2014. Initial Case Management Conference set for 7/30/2014 10:00 AM in Courtroom A, 15th Floor, San Francisco. Signed by Judge Nathanael Cousins on 6/27/2014. (Attachments: # 1 Consent/Declination Form)(lmh, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/27/2014)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

10
11 SYNNEX CORPORATION, a Delaware
12

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
Plaintiff,

13
14

Case No. 14-cv-01606 NC

Corporation,
Re: Dkt. No. 1
v.
THERA MARIE FREEMAN, an individual;

15 also known as THERA MARIE SARTORIS,
an individual; DAVID FREEMAN, an

16 individual; individually & collectively doing
business as PRIORITY COMPUTER

17 SYSTEMS; and DOES 1 to 50, inclusive,
18

Defendants.

19
20

Plaintiff Synnex Corporation brings this action for breach of contract against

21 defendants Thera Marie Freeman and David Freeman, individually and collectively doing
22 business as Priority Computer Systems. Dkt. No. 1. The complaint asserts that this Court
23 has subject matter jurisdiction based on diversity under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Id. ¶ 4.
24 However, the complaint does not contain sufficient allegations to establish the citizenship of
25 the defendants for diversity purposes.
26

Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and are presumptively without

27 jurisdiction. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). A
28 federal court may dismiss an action on its own motion if it finds that it lacks subject matter
Case No. 14-cv-01606 NC
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

1 jurisdiction over the action. Fiedler v. Clark, 714 F.2d 77, 78-79 (9th Cir. 1983); see also
2 Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3) (“If the court determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter
3 jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action.”).
4

District courts have diversity jurisdiction over “all civil actions where the matter in

5 controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs” and the
6 action is between: “(1) citizens of different States; (2) citizens of a State and citizens or
7 subjects of a foreign state . . . ; (3) citizens of different States and in which citizens or
8 subjects of a foreign state are additional parties; and (4) a foreign state . . . as plaintiff and
9 citizen of a State or of different States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1332. A natural person’s state
10 citizenship is determined by her state of domicile. Kanter v. Warner-Lambert Co., 265 F.3d
11 853, 857 (9th Cir. 2001). “A person’s domicile is her permanent home, where she resides
12 with the intention to remain or to which she intends to return. . . . A person residing in a
13 given state is not necessarily domiciled there, and thus is not necessarily a citizen of that
14 state.” Id.
15

The complaint here alleges that defendant Thera Marie Freeman, an individual, “is

16 the owner of PRIORITY COMPUTER SYSTEMS and the wife of Defendant, DAVID
17 FREEMAN whose principal place of business is located at 3208 Peach Street, Erie, PA,
18 16508.” Dkt. No. 1 ¶ 2. The complaint further alleges that David Freeman, an individual,
19 “is the husband of Defendant, THERA MARIE FREEMAN, . . . whose principal place of
20 business is located at 3208 Peach Street, Erie, PA 16508.” Id. ¶ 3. The complaint fails to
21 allege the domicile or citizenship of Thera Marie Freeman and David Freeman for diversity
22 purposes.
23

Because the complaint does not contain sufficient allegations to establish that there is

24 complete diversity of citizenship between plaintiff and all defendants, by July 16, 2014,
25 plaintiff must amend its complaint to plead an adequate basis for diversity jurisdiction, or
26 show cause in writing why this action should not be dismissed for lack of federal subject
27 matter jurisdiction. If plaintiff is unable to allege the citizenship of all defendants without
28 conducting discovery on this issue, plaintiff should so indicate in its response to the order
Case No. 14-cv-01606 NC
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

2

1 to show cause.
2

Pl
laintiff must also conse or declin the jurisdiction of a magistrate judge by J
ent
ne
e
July

4.
ched consen
nt/declinatio form.
on
3 16, 2014 See attac

4

Th initial ca managem confer
he
ase
ment
rence is con
ntinued from July 16 to July 30, 2
m
2014, at

0
troom A, 15 Floor, U.S. Distric Court, 450 Golden G Avenue San
5th
U
ct
Gate
e,
5 10:00 a.m. in Court
co,
nia.
6 Francisc Californ

7

IT IS SO OR
T
RDERED.

8

Date: June 27 2014
7,

9

_________
__________
____
_____
Nath
hanael M. C
Cousins
Unit States M
ted
Magistrate J
Judge

10
0
11
1
12
2
13
3
14
4
15
5
16
6
17
7
18
8
19
9
20
0
21
1
22
2
23
3
24
4
25
5
26
6
27
7
28
8
Case No. 14-cv-0160 NC
06
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
R

3