Chang v. Noh et al

Filing 45

ORDER. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this case is dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Clerk of the Court is instructed to close the case. Signed by Chief Judge Gloria M. Navarro on 9/6/2018. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MR)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3

MICHAEL CHANG,
4
5

Plaintiff,
vs.

6

RICKY NOH, et al.,
7
8

Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 2:18-cv-00495-GMN-CWH
ORDER

9
10

On August 27, 2018, the Court issued an Order, (ECF No. 42), instructing Plaintiff to

11

“show cause as to why the Court should not dismiss this action for failure to satisfy the

12

requirements of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 or 1332.” (Id.). On

13

September 5, 2018, Plaintiff and Defendants filed Responses, (ECF Nos. 43, 44).

14

Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, having subject matter jurisdiction only

15

over matters authorized by the Constitution and Congress. See Bender v. Williamsport Area

16

Sch. Dist., 475 U.S. 534, 541 (1986). The basic statutory grants of subject matter jurisdiction

17

are contained in 28 U.S.C. § 1331, which provides for federal question jurisdiction, and § 1332,

18

which provides for diversity jurisdiction. Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 513 (2006).

19

Section 1331 provides that federal district courts have original jurisdiction over “civil actions

20

arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Under

21

§ 1332, diversity jurisdiction is established if an action is between parties of diverse citizenship

22

and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a).

23

Here, Plaintiff’s two causes of action for alter ego liability and successor liability arise

24

under state law. (See Compl. ¶¶ 32–69); see also Village Builders 96, L.P. v. U.S. Labs, Inc.,

25

112 P.3d 1082, 1086–87 (Nev. 2005); Deal v. 999 Lakeshore Ass’n, 579 P.2d 775, 779 (Nev.
1978). Therefore, the Court is without federal question jurisdiction under § 1331. With respect
Page 1 of 2

1

to diversity jurisdiction, Plaintiff and Defendant Ricky Noh are residents of California. (See

2

Compl. ¶ 7, ECF No. 1; Acknowledgment of Assignment of J. ¶ 7, Ex. D to Compl., ECF No.

3

1-4); see also Chang v. Noh, No. 2:17-cv-06205-RGK-JC (C.D. Cal. Aug. 22, 2017) (Compl. ¶

4

3, ECF No. 1). Further, the two other Defendants to this action, MC Crew, Ltd. and The Style

5

N, Inc., are corporations organized under California law and have their principal places of

6

business in California. (See Compl. ¶¶ 8–9). Therefore, because all the parties to this action are

7

California residents for jurisdictional purposes, the Court does not have diversity jurisdiction

8

over this action.

9
10

Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that it has neither federal question nor diversity
jurisdiction over this instant case.1

11

Accordingly,

12

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this case is dismissed for lack of subject matter

13

jurisdiction.

14

The Clerk of the Court is instructed to close the case.

15

6
DATED this _____ day of September, 2018.

16
17

___________________________________
Gloria M. Navarro, Chief Judge
United States District Judge

18
19
20
21
22
23
1

24
25

Plaintiff requests that the Court transfer the instant action to the Central District of California and issue a
declaration on the merits of its alter ego claim. (See Resp. to Order to Show Cause 2:12–15, ECF No. 44). The
Court denies this request as it is without subject matter jurisdiction over this action. See, e.g., Orff v. United
States, 358 F.3d 1137, 1149 (9th Cir. 2004) (“If jurisdiction is lacking at the outset, the district court has ‘no
power to do anything with the case except dismiss.’”) (quoting Morongo Band of Mission Indians v. Cal. State.
Bd. of Equalization, 858 F.2d 1376, 1380 (9th Cir. 1988)).

Page 2 of 2