Tag v. i360, LLC
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Myron James Lorenz (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed a putative class action complaint alleging invasion of privacy where the plaintiff relied on the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA) for federal jurisdiction but failed to allege the citizenship of any defendant. The court dismissed the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction with leave to amend to cure the jurisdictional defects.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Dismissal of complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction with leave to amend“The complaint dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1653, Plaintiff is granted leave to file an amended complaint to supplement her jurisdictional allegations.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the principle that a plaintiff must affirmatively allege facts establishing subject matter jurisdiction. Because the complaint failed to allege the citizenship of the individual defendant or the members of the limited liability company defendants, the court could not determine on the face of the complaint that minimal diversity existed under CAFA. Dismissing with leave to amend is the standard procedural remedy for curable jurisdictional pleading defects. |
The order itself: sound — The order is legally sound. It correctly identifies that CAFA jurisdiction requires minimal diversity and that the plaintiff bears the burden of affirmatively alleging the citizenship of all parties. The court correctly applied the rule that an LLC's citizenship is derived from its members and noted the failure to allege this information. The remedy of dismissal with leave to amend under 28 U.S.C. § 1653 is appropriate for a curable jurisdictional pleading defect.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JENNIFER TAG, Case No.: 21cv975-L(MDD)
12 Plaintiff, ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT 13 v. WITH LEAVE TO AMEND TO ALLEGE SUBJECT MATTER 14 i360, LLC et al., JURISDICTION 15 Defendants.
16 In this putative class action alleging invasion of privacy Plaintiff bases federal 17 jurisdiction on the minimal diversity of citizenship required by the Class Action Fairness 18 Act of 2005, 28 U.S.C. §1332(d) (“CAFA”). (Compl. at 4.) Because it is not possible to 19 determine on the face of the complaint that minimal diversity is present, the action is 20 dismissed with leave to amend to allege subject matter jurisdiction. 21 Unlike state courts, 22 Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. They possess only that 23 power authorized by Constitution and statute, which is not to be expanded by judicial decree. It is to be presumed that a cause lies outside this limited 24 jurisdiction, and the burden of establishing the contrary rests upon the party 25 asserting jurisdiction.
27 / / / 28 1 Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). Federal courts 2 are constitutionally required to raise issues related to federal subject matter jurisdiction 3 and may do so sua sponte. Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 514 (2006). A federal 4 court must satisfy itself of its jurisdiction over the subject matter before proceeding to the 5 merits of the case. Ruhrgas AG v. Marathon Oil Co., 526 U.S. 574, 577, 583 (1999). 6 "A plaintiff suing in a federal court must show in his pleading, affirmatively and 7 distinctly, the existence of whatever is essential to federal jurisdiction, and, if he does not 8 do so, the court, on having the defect called to its attention or on discovering the same, 9 must dismiss the case, unless the defect be corrected by amendment.” Tosco Corp. v. 10 Communities for a Better Env’t, 236 F.3d 495, 499 (9th Cir. 2001), abrogated on other 11 grounds by Hertz Corp. v. Friend, 559 U.S. 77, 82-83 (2010). 12 Plaintiff relies on CAFA which provides for jurisdiction over class actions where 13 the matter in controversy exceeds $5 million and requires that “any member of a class of 14 plaintiffs is a citizen of a State different from any defendant.” 28 U.S.C. §1332(d). The 15 complaint must affirmatively allege the state of citizenship of each party. Bautista v. Pan 16 Am. World Airlines, Inc., 828 F.2d 546, 552 (9th Cir.1987); see also Kanter v. Warner- 17 Lambert, Co., 265 F.3d 853 (9th Cir. 2001). 18 Individuals like Plaintiff are citizens of the state where they are domiciled. Kanter, 19 265 F.3d at 857. Plaintiff alleges she is a California citizen. (Compl. at 5.) 20 One named Defendant, Joe Leventhal, is an individual. Plaintiff does not allege 21 his citizenship. (See Compl. at 5.) 22 Two named Defendants, i360, LLC and GC Strategies, LLC, are limited liability 23 companies. The citizenship of a limited liability company for purposes of diversity 24 jurisdiction is determined by examining the citizenship of each of its members. Carden 25 26 27 1 Unless otherwise noted, internal quotation marks, citations, and footnotes are omitted. 28 1 || v. Arkoma Assoc., 494 U.S. 185, 195-96 (1990); Johnson v. Columbia Properties 2 || Anchorage. L.P., 437 F.3d 894, 899 (9th Cir.2006). Plaintiff does not allege the 3 || citizenship of Defendants’ members. (Compl. at 5.) Accordingly, the citizenship of 4 || these Defendants cannot be determined from the face of the complaint. 5 Because Plaintiff does not allege any Defendant’s citizenship, she has not alleged 6 minimal diversity as required for subject matter jurisdiction under CAFA. The complaint 7 dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1653, Plaintiff 8 ||is granted leave to file an amended complaint to supplement her jurisdictional allegations. 9 || If Plaintiff chooses to file an amended complaint, she must do so no later than June 18, 10 2021. 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. 12 13 ||Dated: May 24, 2021 15 H . James Lorenz, 6 United States District Judge 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28