Chung vs. Safeway Inc.; et al.

Filing 64

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR LACK OF SUBJECT- MATTER JURISDICTION - Signed by JUDGE HELEN GILLMOR on 10/5/2017. "Plaintiff shall file her response on or before Thursday, October 19, 2017. Def endants shall file their Reply on or before Thursday, November 2, 2017." (emt, )CERTIFICATE OF SERVICEParticipants registered to receive electronic notifications received this document electronically at the e-mail address listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF). Participants not registered to receive electronic notifications were served by first class mail on the date of this docket entry

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
)
SAFEWAY INC.; ALBERT MITA; JOHN )
DOES 1-10; JANE DOES 1-10; DOE )
PARTNERSHIPS 1-10; DOE
)
CORPORATIONS 1-10; DOE
)
GOVERNMENTAL ENTITIES 1-10,
)
)
Defendants.
)
)
)
JOO YUN CHUNG,

Civ. No. 17-00020 HG-KJM

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR LACK
OF SUBJECT-MATTER JURISDICTION

Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction.

Subject-

matter jurisdiction is conferred on federal courts either through
federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, or through
diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332.

Peralta v.

Hispanic Bus., Inc., 419 F.3d 1064, 1068 (9th Cir. 2005).
Diversity jurisdiction exists when there is complete
diversity of citizenship between the parties, and the amount in
controversy exceeds $75,000.

28 U.S.C. § 1332(a); Caterpillar

Inc. v. Lewis, 519 U.S. 61, 68 (1996).
On January 6, 2017, Plaintiff Joo Yun Chung filed the First

1

Amended Complaint in the Circuit Court for the First Circuit,
State of Hawaii against Defendants Safeway, Inc. and Albert Mita.
(ECF No. 1-2).
On January 13, 2017, Defendants removed the action to the
United States District Court for the District of Hawaii.

(ECF

No. 1).
The First Amended Complaint does not appear to provide a
basis for subject-matter jurisdiction.

The First Amended

Complaint does not assert a federal question.

The First Amended

Complaint asserts Hawaii state law negligence claims.
The allegations in the First Amended Complaint are
insufficient to determine if diversity jurisdiction exists.
Plaintiff asserts that both she and Defendant Albert Mita are
“residents” of the State of Hawaii.
to the Parties’ citizenship.

There are no allegations as

The presence in the action of a

plaintiff with citizenship from the same state as a single
defendant deprives the district court of original diversity
jurisdiction over the entire action.

Exxon Mobil Corp. v.

Allapattah Servs., Inc., 545 U.S. 546, 553 (2005).
The First Amended Complaint also does not provide
allegations as to the amount in controversy.

“Conclusory

allegations as to the amount in controversy are insufficient.”
Matheson v. Progressive Specialty Ins. Co., 319 F.3d 1089,
1090-91 (9th Cir. 2003).

2

Plaintiff is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE why this action should
not be dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
Plaintiff shall identify the citizenship for each of the Parties.
Plaintiff shall specify the amount in controversy.
Plaintiff shall file her response on or before Thursday,
October 19, 2017.
Defendants shall file their Reply on or before Thursday,
November 2, 2017.
The Court elects to decide the matter without a hearing
pursuant to District of Hawaii Local Rule 7.2(d).
The Court will not set a briefing schedule on Defendants’
Motion for Partial Summary Judgment unless jurisdiction is
established.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED:

Honolulu, Hawaii, October 5, 2017.

___________________________________
Helen Gillmor
United States District Judge

Joo Yun Chung v. Safeway Inc.; Albert Mita; John Does 1-10; Jane
Does 1-10; Doe Partnerships 1-10; Doe Corporations 1-10; Doe
Governmental Entities 1-10; Civ. No. 17-00020 HG-KJM; ORDER TO
SHOW CAUSE WHY ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR LACK OF
SUBJECT-MATTER JURISDICTION
3