Gabriel Rosas Ybarra v. Alaska Airlines, Inc. ( 2019 )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL Case No. CV 19-7701-DMG (AGRx) Date September 16, 2019 Title Gabriel Rosas Ybarra v. Alaska Airlines, Inc., et al. Page 1 of 1 Present: The Honorable DOLLY M. GEE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE KANE TIEN NOT REPORTED Deputy Clerk Court Reporter Attorneys Present for Plaintiff(s) Attorneys Present for Defendant(s) None Present None Present Proceedings: IN CHAMBERS - ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THIS ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION On September 5, 2019, Plaintiff Gabriel Rosas Ybarra filed this action against Defendants Alaska Airlines, Inc. and Virgin America, Inc. [Doc. # 2 (“Compl.”).] He alleges causes of action for general negligence, negligent hiring, and common carrier liability, none of which appear to implicate federal law. See id. According to Plaintiff, the Court has jurisdiction over his suit under 28 U.S.C. 1332(a). Id. at ¶ 10. He also alleges, however, that he is a resident of Los Angeles County, Alaska Airlines is a corporate citizen of Washington, and Virgin America is a corporate citizen of Delaware and California.1 Id. at ¶¶ 1-5. To establish diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. section 1332(a), there must be “complete diversity between the parties—each defendant must be a citizen of a different state from each plaintiff.” Diaz v. Davis (In re Digimarc Corp. Derivative Litig.), 549 F.3d 1223, 1234 (9th Cir. 2008). As alleged, Plaintiff’s Complaint indicates a lack of complete diversity because he and Virgin America are both California citizens. Accordingly, Plaintiff is hereby ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE why the Court should not dismiss this action, without prejudice, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Plaintiff shall file a response, not to exceed 10 pages, within 14 days of the date of this Order. Failure to timely file a satisfactory response by this deadline will result in the dismissal of this action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. IT IS SO ORDERED. 1 In two separate paragraphs, Plaintiff alleges that Virgin America has two different principal places of business. Compare Compl. at ¶ 3 with Compl. at ¶ 5. Since both of these places are in California, the discrepancy is meaningless for the purposes of this Order.