Lawrence V. Longhi v. Khaled Monawar

Filing 19

ORDER REQUIRING SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING RE 12 MOTION for Default Judgment. July 16 motion hearing is VACATED. Signed by Judge Kandis A. Westmore on 07/09/2015. (kawlc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/9/2015)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

LAWRENCE V LONGHI,

Case No. 14-cv-04554-KAW

Plaintiff,
8
v.
9
10

KHALED MONAWAR,
Defendant.

ORDER REQUIRING SUPPLEMENTAL
BRIEFING RE MOTION FOR
DEFAULT JUDGMENT
Re: Dkt. No. 12

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

Plaintiff Lawrence V. Longhi has moved for default judgment against Defendant Khaled

14

Monawar. Upon initial review of the complaint and the moving papers, it appears that the

15

allegations in the complaint and the briefing offered in support of the motion are deficient as to the

16

following issues:

17

First, Plaintiff asserts that "since they were served with the summons and the First

18

Amended Complaint, Defendants have chosen not to participate in this litigation in any capacity."

19

(Mot. Default J. at 11, Dkt. No. 12.) Aside from the fact that a first amended complaint has never

20

been filed in this case, and the operative complaint names only one Defendant, Plaintiff's assertion

21

that Defendant was served with the summons and complaint on or about December 7, 2014 is not

22

sufficient to establish that service, specifically substituted service, was properly effected.

23

Second, Plaintiff identifies as a citizen of New Jersey, who has been residing in that state,

24

and he alleges that Defendant is a citizen of California, who has been residing in Concord,

25

California, at all relevant times. (Compl. ¶¶ 1-3, Dkt. No. 1.) Plaintiff, however, does not make

26

sufficient allegations with respect to either party's citizenship for the purposes of establishing

27

diversity jurisdiction. See Kantor v. Wellesley Galleries, Ltd., 704 F.2d 1088, 1090 (9th Cir.

28

1983) ("To show state citizenship for diversity purposes under federal common law a party must

1
(1) be a citizen of the United States, and (2) be domiciled in [a] state.") (citations omitted). In
2
order for the Court to find that it has subject matter jurisdiction over this action, Plaintiff must
3
sufficiently allege facts establishing that each party is (1) a citizen of the United States and (2)
4
domiciled in a particular state. See Kantor, 704 F.2d at 1091 ("And, as stated above, the federal
5
law is that United States citizenship is a prerequisite of state citizenship."). Additionally, Plaintiff
6
makes no allegations with respect to Defendant's domicile, and to the extent that Plaintiff wishes
7
to establish personal jurisdiction based on where Plaintiff lives, such allegations are necessary.
8
See Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 131 S. Ct. 2846, 2853-54 (2011) ("For an
9
individual, the paradigm forum for the exercise of general jurisdiction is the individual's domicile .
10
. . ."); Sillah v. Common Int'l Security Services, Case No.: 14-cv-01960-LHK, 2014 WL 5144540,
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

at * 2 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 13, 2014) ("A person is 'domiciled' in a location where he or she has
12
established a fixed habitation or abode in a particular place, and intends to remain there
13
permanently or indefinitely.") (citations and modifications omitted).
14
Third, Plaintiff alleges that the statute of limitations was tolled or suspended while an
15
action was pending before the Superior Court of New Jersey Law Division, Morris County, which
16

was the first suit Plaintiff brought against Defendant.1 (Compl. ¶ 33, Dkt. No. 1.) Plaintiff,

17
however, does not address any statute of limitations issue in his brief. Nor do the allegations in
18
the complaint establish that the factual predicates for tolling, if available, have been met in this
19
case. Furthermore, the allegations in the complaint do not clearly identify when all of the
20
purported wrongful conduct occurred, making it impossible to determine when the statute of
21
limitations would have commenced for each of the causes of action asserted in the complaint.
22
(See, e.g., Compl. ¶ 29 ("In addition, Defendant has admitted to Longhi that he now owns a quarry
23
in Afghanistan identical to the quarry proposed by Longhi on behalf of Afgamco in his January
24
14, 2003 proposal to the Afghani government."); id. ¶ 52 ("As a result of his conduct, Defendant
25
26
27
28

1

The Court notes that the docket in the New Jersey action indicates that the case was dismissed
with prejudice, which appears to contradict Plaintiff's representations regarding the disposition of
that litigation.
2

1
has willfully and maliciously breached his fiduciary duty and the duty of loyalty to Longhi.").)
2
Plaintiff shall address these issues in a supplemental brief of not more than 10 pages,
3
which shall be filed within 21 days of this order. The motion hearing currently set for July 16,
4
2015 is VACATED.
5
IT IS SO ORDERED.
6
Dated: 07/09/2015
7

__________________________________
KANDIS A. WESTMORE
United States Magistrate Judge

8
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

3