Shelia Jackson et al v. HotChalk, Inc.

Filing 36

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION. Plaintiffs to show cause within 14 days, why the Court should not dismiss this case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Alternatively, plaintiffs may file an amended complaint within 14 days. Signed by Judge Nathanael Cousins on 7/24/2015. (lmh, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/24/2015)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16

SHEILA JACKSON and ALYSIA
SILVERS,
Plaintiffs,
v.
HOTCHALK, INC.,

Case No. 15-cv-00243 NC
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE:
SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION
Re: Dkt. No. 1

Defendant.
Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and are presumptively without

17

jurisdiction. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). In

18

fact, before examining the merits of a case, a court may dismiss an action sua sponte for

19

lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Fiedler v. Clark, 714 F.2d 77, 78-79 (9th Cir. 1983).

20

Here, while plaintiffs’ complaint asserts that jurisdiction is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1332,

21

there appears to be no basis for this Court’s jurisdiction. The Court, therefore, orders

22

plaintiffs Sheila Jackson and Alysia Silvers to show cause why this case should not be

23

dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

24

The Class Action Fairness Act gives federal district courts original jurisdiction over

25

class actions in which the class members number at least 100, at least one plaintiff is

26

diverse in citizenship from any defendant, and the aggregate amount in controversy

27

exceeds $5,000,000, exclusive of interest and costs. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d). Notably, CAFA

28

“abandons the complete diversity rule for covered class actions.” Abrego v. Dow Chem.
Case No. 15-cv-00243 NC

1

Co., 443 F.3d 676, 680 (9th Cir. 2006). As a result, “minimal diversity” is all that CAFA

2

requires; this exists if “any member of a class of plaintiffs is a citizen of a State different

3

from any defendant.” 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d).
Still, it remains that “[a] party asserting diversity jurisdiction bears the burden of

4
5

proof.” Lew v. Moss, 797 F.2d 747, 749 (9th Cir. 1986). Moreover, pleading minimal

6

diversity under § 1332 requires the asserting party to specify the state citizenship of the

7

diverse parties—alleging a party’s residency in another state is not enough. See Kanter v.

8

Warner-Lambert Co., 265 F.3d 853, 857-58 (holding that because “the diversity

9

jurisdiction statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1332, speaks of citizenship, not of residency” the
defendant’s failure to specify state citizenship was “fatal to defendants’ assertion of

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

diversity jurisdiction”). Residency is inadequate because “a person residing in a given

12

state is not necessarily domiciled there.” Id. (to determine a person’s citizenship, courts

13

look to a person’s domicile, which is “her permanent home, where she resides with the

14

intention to remain or to which she intends to return”).
Here, plaintiffs’ complaint does not sufficiently allege citizenship to satisfy the

15
16

requirement of minimal diversity under CAFA. Although plaintiffs allege that HotChalk is

17

“a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business” in California, they do not

18

specify both plaintiffs’ state citizenship. Dkt. No. 1 at ¶ 5. Indeed, while the complaint

19

asserts, “Silvers is a citizen of the state of California,” it fails to assert whether Jackson is a

20

citizen of a state different from HotChalk’s state citizenship. Dkt. No. 1 at ¶¶ 2 (“Plaintiff

21

Sheila Jackson is a resident of Tucson, Arizona.”), 10 (asserting Silvers’ citizenship).

22

Silvers herself does not satisfy the minimal diversity requirements because she has the

23

same state citizenship as HotChalk: California. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1) (a corporation

24

is deemed to be a citizen of any State by which it has been incorporated and of the State

25

where it has its principal place of business). Without knowledge regarding the state

26

citizenship of Jackson, the Court cannot determine whether plaintiffs meet the minimal

27

diversity requirement under CAFA.

28

//
Case No. 15-cv-00243 NC

2

1

Accordingly, the Court orders plaintiffs to show cause within 14 days, why the

2

Court should not dismiss this case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Alternatively,

3

plaintiffs may file an amended complaint within 14 days that cures the deficiencies

4

discussed above. In the meantime, HotChalk’s motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ complaint

5

remains under submission. Dkt. No. 19.

6
7

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: July 24, 2015

8

_____________________________________
NATHANAEL M. COUSINS
United States Magistrate Judge

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
Case No. 15-cv-00243 NC

3