SANCHEZ-CANETE v. BOQUIN BANEGAS et al

Filing 6

MEMORANDUM AND OPINION: Upon consideration of Plaintiff's response to the Court's Order to Show Cause, 2 , this case is hereby DISMISSED without prejudice on the Court's own motion for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. See document for details. Signed by Judge Randolph D. Moss on 5/31/2017. (lcrdm2, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

JESUS SANCHEZ-CANETE,
Plaintiff,
v.

Civil Action No. 17-905 (RDM)

MIRIAN Y. BOQUIN BANEGAS, et al.,
Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Jesus Sanchez-Canete, a resident of Virginia, brings this action for libel and slander
against forty-three defendants, thirty-eight of whom also reside in Virginia. Dkt. 1 at 1–4. He
asserts diversity as the basis for jurisdiction in this Court. Id. at 6. Because it appears from the
face of the complaint that Sanchez-Canete has failed to satisfy the statutory requirements of
diversity jurisdiction, the Court ordered him to show cause why this case should not be dismissed
for lack of jurisdiction. Dkt. 2. In his response to the Court’s order, Sanchez-Canete asserts that
“the majority of the defendants are Alien, neither U.S. Citizens or U.S. Legal Permanent
Residents, placing the jurisdictions in the Federal Courts” pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Dkt. 5
at 1.
Sanchez-Canete is mistaken. Diversity jurisdiction “is lacking if there are any litigants
from the same state on opposing sides.” Saadeh v. Farouki, 107 F.3d 52, 55 (D.C. Cir. 1997)
(internal quotation mark omitted) (quoting Prakash v. Am. Univ., 727 F.2d 1174, 1178 n.25
(D.C. Cir. 1984)). Sanchez-Canete is the party seeking to invoke federal jurisdiction, and he
“bears the burden of establishing its existence.” Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S.
83, 103–04 (1998). That “the majority of the defendants” are allegedly aliens not admitted for

lawful permanent residence is irrelevant to Sanchez-Canete’s efforts to discharge that burden,
Dkt. 5 at 1 (emphasis added); rather, he must show that none of the thirty-eight Virginia residents
named as defendants in the complaint is a citizen or lawful permanent resident of the United
States. Sanchez-Canete’s response to the Court’s order falls short of that mark, and, indeed, it
suggests that at least a minority of the defendants are either U.S. citizens or legal permanent
residents. Because Sanchez-Canete’s filings are insufficient to establish federal jurisdiction, the
Court will, on its own motion, dismiss this case without prejudice.
A separate order will issue.

/s/ Randolph D. Moss
RANDOLPH D. MOSS
United States District Judge

Date: May 31, 2017

2