Ingrande v. Autozoners, LLC
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Myron James Lorenz (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed a complaint in an employment discrimination action that alleged federal jurisdiction based on diversity of citizenship but failed to allege the citizenship of the parties. 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 is 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 his jurisdictional allegations.” | agree with court The order correctly identifies that the complaint fails to meet the pleading requirements for diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Specifically, the plaintiff failed to allege his own citizenship and the citizenship of the defendant's members, which is required to establish complete diversity. The court correctly applied the rule that a plaintiff must affirmatively and distinctly allege the facts essential to federal jurisdiction. Granting leave to amend under 28 U.S.C. § 1653 is the standard and appropriate remedy for a curable jurisdictional pleading defect. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly applies the legal standards for diversity jurisdiction. It accurately cites Supreme Court and Ninth Circuit precedent establishing that federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, that the plaintiff bears the burden of affirmatively alleging jurisdictional facts, and that complete diversity is required. The court correctly identifies the specific pleading deficiencies (lack of plaintiff's citizenship and defendant's member citizenship) and applies the appropriate remedy (dismissal with leave to amend under 28 U.S.C. § 1653). The reasoning is complete and supported by the cited authorities.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MICHAEL INGRANDE, Case No.: 21cv1075-L(WVG)
12 Plaintiff, ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT 13 v. WITH LEAVE TO AMEND TO ALLEGE SUBJECT MATTER 14 AUTOZONERS, LLC, JURISDICTION 15 Defendant.
16 In this employment discrimination action alleging violations of Cal. Gov’t Code § 17 12940 claims federal jurisdiction based on diversity of citizenship under 28 U.S.C. 18 §1332. (Compl. at 2.) Because it is not possible to determine on the face of the 19 complaint that the parties are diverse, the action is dismissed with leave to amend to 20 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 Under section 1332(a), subject matter jurisdiction exists in cases where the amount 13 in controversy exceeds $75,000 and the case is "between citizens of different states." To 14 meet the requirement of diversity of citizenship, Plaintiff must show "complete diversity 15 of citizenship." Caterpillar, Inc. v. Lewis, 519 U.S. 61, 68 (1996). This requirement is 16 met when "the citizenship of each plaintiff is diverse from the citizenship of each 17 defendant." Id. The complaint must affirmatively allege the state of citizenship of each 18 party. Bautista v. Pan Am. World Airlines, Inc., 828 F.2d 546, 552 (9th Cir.1987); see 19 also Kanter v. Warner-Lambert, Co., 265 F.3d 853 (9th Cir. 2001). 20 Although Plaintiff alleges he was Defendant’s employee in San Diego County, he 21 does not allege his domicile or citizenship. (See Compl. at 2.) Accordingly, Plaintiff 22 does not allege his state of citizenship. See Kanter, 265 F.3d at 857. 23 Defendant is a limited liability company. The citizenship of a limited liability 24 company for purposes of diversity jurisdiction is determined by examining the citizenship 25 26 27 1 Unless otherwise noted, internal quotation marks, citations, and footnotes are omitted. 28 1 each of its members. Carden v. Arkoma Assoc., 494 U.S. 185, 195-96 (1990); Johnson 2 ||v. Columbia Properties Anchorage. L.P., 437 F.3d 894, 899 (9th Cir.2006). Plaintiff 3 || does not allege the citizenship of Defendant’s members. (See Compl. at 2.) Accordingly, 4 || Defendant’s citizenship cannot be determined from the face of the complaint. 5 Because Plaintiff does not allege any party’s citizenship, he has not alleged 6 || diversity as required for subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. The 7 ||complaint is dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 8 $1653, Plaintiff is granted leave to file an amended complaint to supplement his 9 jurisdictional allegations. If Plaintiff chooses to file an amended complaint, he must do 10 no later than June 23, 2021. 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. 12 13 Dated: June 9, 2021 15 H . James Lorenz, 6 United States District Judge 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28