BlueSky Companies Inc. v. Hall, et al.

Filing 13

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on June 15, 2016. (mmclc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/15/2016)

1
2
3
4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7
8

BLUESKY COMPANIES INC., a
California corporation; PETER VILA;
PAUL HUNTER; ANTHONY TULINO;
and OLIVER MARKHAM HEALY III,

9

Plaintiffs,

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

Case No. 16-cv-02950-MMC
ORDER DISMISSING ACTION FOR
LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER
JURISDICTION

v.
BRIAN HALL, BLUESKY COMPANIES,
INC., a California corporation; and DOES
1-40, inclusive,

13

Defendants.

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

Before the Court is plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint ("FAC"), filed June 10,
2016, in which plaintiffs, who are four individuals who allege they are shareholders in
BlueSky Companies, Inc. ("BlueSky"), assert state law claims against defendant Brian
Hall, an individual alleged to be a director and officer of BlueSky.1 Plaintiffs assert the
Court has diversity jurisdiction over the claims in the FAC. Having read and considered
the FAC, the Court, for the reasons set forth below, will dismiss the instant action for lack
of subject matter jurisdiction.
A district court has diversity jurisdiction “where the matter in controversy exceeds

23

the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs,” see 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a),

24

and is between “citizens of different States,” see 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1). The diversity

25
26
27
28

1

BlueSky is named in the caption as a plaintiff and a defendant. As set forth in the
Court's order of June 10, 2016, in light of plaintiffs' allegation that an antagonistic
relationship exists between plaintiffs and the controlling members of BlueSky, BlueSky is
treated as a defendant.

1

must be "complete," i.e., the “citizenship of each plaintiff [must be] diverse from the

2

citizenship of each defendant.” See Caterpillar, Inc. v. Lewis, 519 U.S. 61, 68 & n.3

3

(1996).

4

By order filed June 10, 2016, the Court dismissed plaintiffs' initial complaint,

5

finding plaintiffs had failed to allege any facts to support a finding that the instant action is

6

between citizens of different states. Specifically, other than alleging sufficient facts to

7

support a finding that BlueSky is a citizen of California, the Court noted plaintiffs had not

8

alleged the citizenship of any of the four plaintiffs or of the one individual defendant. The

9

Court afforded plaintiffs leave to amend to allege, if they could, facts to support a finding

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

that the parties are diverse in citizenship.
In the FAC, plaintiffs now identify the state in which each individual plaintiff and the

12

one individual defendant is a citizen. As is evident from the face of the FAC, however,

13

the parties are not diverse. Specifically, plaintiff Peter Vila is alleged to be "a citizen of

14

California" (see Compl. ¶ 1), as are defendant Brian Hall (see Compl. ¶ 5) and defendant

15

BlueSky (see Compl. ¶ 6).

16

Accordingly, as complete diversity is lacking, the instant action is hereby

17

DISMISSED for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, without prejudice to plaintiffs' refiling

18

their claims in state court.

19

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20
21

Dated: June 15, 2016
MAXINE M. CHESNEY
United States District Judge

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2