Santos v. Office Depot, Inc. et al

Filing 17

ORDER denying 16 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Judge Larry Alan Burns on 5/3/2018. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(jdt)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

Case No.: 18cv506-LAB (MDD)

SYLVIA SANTOS,
Plaintiff,

12
13

v.

14

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION

OFFICE DEPOT, INC.,

15

Defendant.

16
17

On April 26, the Court dismissed Santos’ complaint without leave to amend,

18

because it was clear the Court lacked jurisdiction over her claims. The Court had

19

previously explained diversity jurisdiction to Santos, and had told her what would

20

be needed to establish it. (Docket no. 3 at 2:27–3:11.) After the Court granted her

21

an extension, she filed a verified amended complaint that did not correct the

22

jurisdictional pleading defect; to the contrary, it showed that the Court lacks

23

jurisdiction over this case because the parties are not diverse. The Court dismissed

24

the case without prejudice.

25

Santos has now submitted a motion for reconsideration, which the Court

26

accepted by discrepancy order and construes as a motion under Fed. R. Civ. P.

27

60. She explains that she was not thinking clearly because she was suffering from

28

a concussion, but is now prepared to allege jurisdictional facts.
1
18cv506-LAB (MDD)

The proposed amended complaint, however, still shows the parties are not

1
2

diverse.

3

Castellanos. She admits Castellanos resides and works in California, and she has

4

no reason to believe he is a citizen of some other state or country. (Proposed

5

Second Amended Complaint, & 3.) Even assuming Castellanos were a citizen of

6

some other country, under 28 U.S.C. ' 1332(a)(2) he would be treated as a

7

California citizen for purposes of diversity jurisdiction. She also speculates that he

8

may be present in the U.S. illegally, which would provide an exception to

9

' 1332(a)(2), but she does not allege this, and identifies no reason to believe this

10

Santos is suing both Office Depot and its store manager, Alberto

is so.

11

Santos suggests that discovery might eventually show that the parties are

12

diverse. Even if the Court were to construe Santos’ remarks as a request for early

13

discovery to investigate whether Castellanos is living and working illegally in the

14

U.S., the request would be denied. Santos has not established good cause for

15

such intrusive discovery, and the standard for granting it is clearly not met here.

16

See Semitool, Inc. v. Tokyo Electron Am., Inc. 208 F.R.D. 273, 275–76 (N.D. Cal.

17

2002); Columbia Ins. Co. v. seescandy.com, 185 F.R.D. 573, 577–78 (N.D. Cal.

18

1999) (citing Wells Fargo & Co. v. Wells Fargo Exp. Co., 556 F.2d 406, 430 n.24

19

(9th Cir. 1977)). This is particularly true here, where the case was dismissed without

20

prejudice to its being filed in a court that could exercise jurisdiction over Santos’

21

claims.

22

The motion is DENIED, and the Clerk is directed to close the docket.

23
24
25

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: May 3, 2018

26
27
28

Hon. Larry Alan Burns
United States District Judge
2
18cv506-LAB (MDD)