R and K Real Estate Investments, LP et al v. Cao-Ly Investment Corporation et al

Filing 4

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE. Order to Show Cause Hearing set for 12/16/2009 09:30 AM. Show Cause Response due by 11/12/2009. Signed by Magistrate Judge Richard Seeborg on 9/28/09. (rslc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/28/2009)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

*E-Filed 9/28/09*

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION R AND K REAL ESTATE INVESTMENTS, LP, et al., Case No. C 09-04437 RS ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION

United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

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

v.

Plaintiffs,

CAO-LY INVESTMENT CORPORATION, et al.,

Defendants. ____________________________________/ On December 16, 2009, at 9:30 a.m., in Courtroom 4, plaintiffs shall appear and show cause, if any they have, why this matter should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The complaint asserts federal jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §1332(a)(1), based on an alleged diversity of citizenship among the parties. The complaint, however, alleges that plaintiffs and defendants Premier Value Realty, Gene Raffanti, North Valley Premier Property, and Christina Martinez are all citizens of California. Complaint ¶¶ 4, 5, 7, and 9. The Supreme Court has "consistently interpreted § 1332 as requiring complete diversity: In a case with multiple plaintiffs and multiple defendants, the presence in the action of a single plaintiff from the same State as a

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

single defendant deprives the district court of original diversity jurisdiction over the entire action." Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Services, Inc., 545 U.S. 546, 553 (2005). If, upon review of this order, plaintiffs conclude that jurisdiction is lacking, they shall promptly dismiss this action. If they believe a basis for jurisdiction exists, they shall serve a copy of this order upon defendants forthwith and shall file an opening brief in support of their position not less than 35 days prior to the December 16, 2009 hearing. Opposition, if any, shall be filed not less than 21 days prior to the hearing, and any reply shall be filed not less than 14 days prior to the hearing.

United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: 9/28/09 RICHARD SEEBORG
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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

2