Camargo v. Miltiadous

Filing 45

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION. Show Cause Response due by 4/18/2016. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley on 4/4/2016. (ahm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/4/2016)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
CARLA CAMARGO,

9

Plaintiff,

10

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE:
SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION

v.

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

Case No. 14-cv-04490-JSC

MILTON MILTIADOUS,

12

Defendant.

13

14
15

In October 2014, Plaintiff Carla Camargo, a California resident and citizen of Brazil, filed

16

suit against Defendant Milton Miltiadous, an Australian citizen and resident of Tokyo, Japan, and

17

Does 1-10, alleging claims for libel, invasion of privacy, and false light. Plaintiff alleged that the

18

Defendants posted defamatory statements regarding her online. Plaintiff’s motion for default

19

judgment as to Defendant Miltiadous is now pending before the Court. (Dkt. No. 39.)
Upon review of the motion, the Court has concerns regarding its subject matter jurisdiction

20
21

given that the doe defendants remain unnamed and the action proceeds only as to Defendant

22

Miltiadous.1 Plaintiff avers that the Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(4);

23

however, section 1332(a)(4) only covers actions where the Plaintiff is a “foreign state.” While

24

Plaintiff is a citizen of a foreign state, she is not herself a foreign state. Thus, to establish subject

25

matter jurisdiction via diversity of citizenship, Plaintiff must satisfy one of the other bases for

26
27
28

1

Although Plaintiff was granted leave to conduct early discovery to identify the individuals who
made the online posts, she did not amend the complaint to name any additional defendants
following issuance of subpoenas seeking this information.

1

jurisdiction in Section 1332(a). The remaining subsections of section 1332(a) provides for

2

diversity jurisdiction in actions between

3

(1) citizens of different States;

4

(2) citizens of a State and citizens or subjects of a foreign state,
except that the district courts shall not have original jurisdiction
under this subsection of an action between citizens of a State and
citizens or subjects of a foreign state who are lawfully admitted for
permanent residence in the United States and are domiciled in the
same State;

5
6

7
8
9

(3) citizens of different States and in which citizens or subjects of a
foreign state are additional parties.
However, given that Plaintiff alleges that both she and Defendant Miltiadous are citizens of
foreign states (Brazil and Australia, respectively), none of these appear to apply. “Although the

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

federal courts have jurisdiction over an action between ‘citizens of a State and citizens or subjects

12

of a foreign state,’ 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(2), diversity jurisdiction does not encompass a foreign

13

plaintiff suing foreign defendants.” Nike, Inc. v. Comercial Iberica de Exclusivas Deportivas,

14

S.A., 20 F.3d 987, 991 (9th Cir. 1994) (citing Cheng v. Boeing Co., 708 F.2d 1406, 1412 (9th Cir.

15

1983).). That Plaintiff is domiciled in California does not create diversity jurisdiction where both

16

parties are citizens of foreign states. See Matao Yokeno v. Sawako Sekiguchi, 754 F.3d 649, 657

17

(9th Cir. 2014).

18

Accordingly, Plaintiff is ORDERED SHOW CAUSE as to how the Court has subject

19

matter jurisdiction over this action. Plaintiff shall file a written response to this Order by April 18,

20

2016. The Court shall address this issue among the other issues raised in Plaintiff’s motion for

21

default judgment at the hearing scheduled for April 28, 2016 at 9:00 a.m. in Courtroom F, 450

22

Golden Gate Ave., San Francisco, California.

23
24
25

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: April 4, 2016

26
27
JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY
United States Magistrate Judge

28
2