Princeton Developments, LLC v. Baylor et al

Filing 36

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE. Plaintiff is ordered to appear and show cause why, if any, this case should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Order to Show Cause Hearing set for 1/10/2012 10:00 AM.. Signed by Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd on 1/5/12. (hrllc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/5/2012)

1

** E-filed January 5, 2012 **

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

For the Northern District of California

NOT FOR CITATION

8

United States District Court

7

SAN JOSE DIVISION

11

PRINCETON DEVELOPMENTS, LLC,
Plaintiff,

12
v.
13

BRYNEE K. BAYLOR; et al.,

No. C11-04471 HRL
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE
CASE SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED
FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER
JURISDICTION

14
15
16

Defendants.
____________________________________/
Plaintiff Princeton Developments, LLC (“Princeton”) sued Brynee Baylor, Baylor & Jackson

17

PLLC, The Milan Group, Inc., Frank Lorenzo, Syed Ali Abbas, GHP Holdings, LLC, and Patrick

18

Lewis on September 8, 2011 alleging claims for fraud, breach of contract, bread of fiduciary duty,

19

legal malpractice, and money had and received. Dkt. No. 1 (“Complaint”). Princeton is a California

20

Limited Liability Company. It is undisputed that defendant Syed Ali Abbas is a California resident.

21

See Dkt. 18. All of the remaining defendants are residents of or entities organized in states other

22

than California.

23

A federal district court has original diversity jurisdiction over any civil action in which the

24

amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 and the action is between citizens of different states. 28

25

U.S.C. § 1332(a). In any case where subject matter jurisdiction depends on § 1332, there must be

26

complete diversity of the parties; that is, all plaintiffs must be of different citizenship than all

27

defendants. Strawbridge v. Curtiss, 7 U.S. 267 (1806). Diversity jurisdiction depends on the parties'

28

status at the commencement of the case (i.e., courts are to look at the citizenship of the parties is

1

determined as of the filing of the complaint). Harris v. Bankers Life and Cas. Co., 425 F.3d 689,

2

695-696 (9th Cir. 2005).

3

Even if no party challenges subject matter jurisdiction, the court has a duty to raise the issue

4

sua sponte whenever it is perceived. Things Remembered, Inc. v. Petrarca, 516 U.S. 124, 132 n.1,

5

116 S. Ct. 494, 133 L. Ed. 2d 461 (1995) (Ginsburg, J., concurring) ("[o]f course, every federal

6

court, whether trial or appellate, is obliged to notice want of subject matter jurisdiction on its own

7

motion").

8

Based on the pleadings and papers currently before the court, the undersigned believes that

For the Northern District of California

there is a lack of subject matter jurisdiction in this action. Accordingly, all parties shall appear on

10

United States District Court

9

January 10, 2012 at 10:00 a.m. and show cause why, if any, this should not be dismissed for lack

11

of subject matter jurisdiction.

12
13
14

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 5, 2012
HOWARD R. LLOYD
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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

2

1

C11-04471 HRL Notice will be electronically mailed to:

2

Steven J. Hassing
Veronika Short

[e-mail]
[e-mail]

3
Notice will be provided by mail to:
4
5

Brynee K Baylor
2607 24th Street, NW Suite 1
Washington, DC 20036

6
7

Syed Ali Abbas
538 Calistoga Circle
Fremont, CA 94536

8
9

Counsel are responsible for distributing copies of this document to co-counsel who have not
registered for e-filing under the court’s CM/ECF program.

For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

3