Gorgis v. Hyper Network Solutions of Florida, LLC

Filing 8

ORDER DISMISSING CASE. Signed by Judge M. James Lorenz on 8/10/2016.(sjt)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ROMIO GORGIS,

Case No.: 16cv1725-L(WVG)
Plaintiff,

12
13

v.

14

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT

HYPER NETWORK SOLUTIONS OF
FLORIDA, LLC,

15
16

Defendant.

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

In this putative class action for violation of California consumer protection laws,
Plaintiff claims federal jurisdiction based on the minimal diversity requirements of the
Class Action Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C. §1332(d). The initial complaint was filed on July 1,
2016, and dismissed on July 14, 2016, because it did not allege sufficient facts to
establish federal jurisdiction. Plaintiff was granted leave to amend pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§1653 to supplement the jurisdictional allegations. A joint motion to extend the time to
file an amended complaint, if any, was granted on July 29, 2016. Plaintiff timely filed an
amended complaint; however, the amended complaint still does not contain sufficient
allegations to establish minimal diversity of the parties. Accordingly, the amended
complaint is dismissed without prejudice.

28
1
16cv1725-L(WVG)

1

Unlike state courts, "[f]ederal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. They

2

possess only that power authorized by Constitution and statute, which is not to be

3

expanded by judicial decree. It is to be presumed that a cause lies outside this limited

4

jurisdiction, and the burden of establishing the contrary rests upon the party asserting

5

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

6

(citations omitted). Federal courts are constitutionally required to raise issues related to

7

federal subject matter jurisdiction and may do so sua sponte. Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp.,

8

546 U.S. 500, 514 (2006). A federal court must satisfy itself of its jurisdiction over the

9

subject matter before proceeding to the merits of the case. Ruhrgas AG v. Marathon Oil

10
11

Co., 526 U.S. 574, 577, 583 (1999).
Plaintiff bears the burden of demonstrating that jurisdiction is properly before the

12

Court. See Thornhill Publ'g Co. v. General Tel. & Elec. Corp., 594 F.2d 730, 733 (9th

13

Cir. 1979). Plaintiff relies on 28 U.S.C. §1332(d)(2), which provides for federal

14

jurisdiction over class actions where the matter in controversy exceeds $5 million, and

15

requires that “any member of a class of plaintiffs is a citizen of a State different from any

16

defendant.” The complaint must affirmatively allege the state of citizenship of each

17

party. Bautista v. Pan Am. World Airlines, Inc., 828 F.2d 546, 552 (9th Cir.1987); see

18

also Kanter v. Warner-Lambert, Co., 265 F.3d 853 (9th Cir. 2001).

19

Plaintiff alleges he is a California resident, and that Defendant is a limited liability

20

company licensed in Florida. The citizenship of non-corporate business entities for

21

purposes of diversity jurisdiction is determined by examining the citizenship of each of

22

its members. Carden v. Arkoma Assoc., 494 U.S. 185, 195-96 (1990); Johnson v.

23

Columbia Properties Anchorage. L.P., 437 F.3d 894, 899 (9th Cir.2006). Plaintiff

24

alleges that Defendant is owned by Kainos Capital, LP. He does not allege the

25

citizenship of Kainos Capital, LP. Accordingly, Plaintiff does not allege the citizenship

26

of each of Defendant's members. The Court is therefore unable to determine Defendant's

27

citizenship, and whether minimal diversity is present.

28
2
16cv1725-L(WVG)

1
2
3

Because Plaintiff does not allege the facts necessary to establish minimal diversity,
the complaint is dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

4
5

Dated: August 10, 2016

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
16cv1725-L(WVG)