Patel v. CarePointe LLC ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 GITESH PATEL, doing business as No. 1:20-cv-00040-DAD-JLT SARGAS PHARMACEUTICAL 12 ADHERENCE & COMPLIANCE (SPAC) INTERNATIONAL LLC, 13 ORDER SUA SPONTE DISMISSING ACTION Plaintiff, FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER 14 JURISDICTION v. 15 CAREPOINTE LLC, et al., 16 Defendants. 17 18 19 On January 10, 2020, the court issued an order requiring plaintiff to show cause in writing 20 as to why this action should not be dismissed due to lack of subject matter jurisdiction. (Doc. No. 21 5.) In particular, the court noted that plaintiff asserts in his complaint that this court has subject 22 matter jurisdiction based on diversity of citizenship pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332, but he alleges 23 that he is a citizen of California and that one of the defendants, Aaron Duerksen, is a resident of 24 California. (Id.; see also Doc. No. 1 at 2, 3.) A copy of the court’s order was served by mail on 25 plaintiff at his address of record. Plaintiff was given fourteen (14) days to respond to the court’s 26 order to show cause, and he has failed to do so. 27 “Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction.” Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of 28 Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). “[S]ubject matter jurisdiction of the district court is not a 1 waivable matter and may be raised at anytime by one of the parties, by motion or in the 2 responsive pleadings, or sua sponte by the trial or reviewing court.” Emrich v. Touche Ross & 3 Co., 846 F.2d 1190, 1194 n.2 (9th Cir. 1988); see also Henderson ex rel. Henderson v. Shinseki, 4 562 U.S. 428, 434–35 (2011) (noting objections to subject matter jurisdiction may be raised post- 5 trial). “It is to be presumed that a cause lies outside this limited jurisdiction, and the burden of 6 establishing the contrary rests upon the party asserting jurisdiction.” Kokkonen, 511 U.S. at 377 7 (internal citation omitted). 8 Here, plaintiff filled out a pro se form complaint for a civil case alleging breach of 9 contract in federal court based on diversity of citizenship, citing 28 U.S.C. § 1332. (Doc. No. 1.) 10 Under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, federal courts have jurisdiction on the basis of diversity of citizenship if 11 the matter is between citizens of different states and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. 12 In fact, the form complaint that plaintiff utilized provides the following explanation and direction: 13 Under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, federal courts may hear cases in which a citizen of one State sues a citizen of another State or nation and the 14 amount at stake is more than $75,000. In that kind of case, called a diversity of citizenship case, no defendant may be a citizen of the 15 same State as any plaintiff. Explain how these jurisdictional requirements have been met. 16 17 (Id. at 3.) The form complaint prompts plaintiff to fill in blanks to allege his citizenship and the 18 citizenship of the defendant. (Id.) If the complaint names more than one defendant, the plaintiff 19 is directed to attach an additional page “providing the same information for each additional 20 defendant.” (Id. at 4.) 21 Plaintiff has named eight total defendants in his complaint: CarePointe LLC, John 22 Rittenour, Vizihealthcare, Aaron Duerksen, Nevada Heart and Vascular Center, Professional 23 Medical Consultants, Onpointe, and Lawrence M. Preston. (Id. at 1.) In the space provided by 24 the form complaint, plaintiff alleges that: (1) he is a citizen of California; (2) defendant John 25 Rittenour is a citizen of Arizona; and (3) defendant CarePointe LLC is incorporated under the 26 laws of Arizona and has its principal place of business in Arizona. (Id. at 3.) Despite the form 27 complaint’s prompt to provide the citizenship information of the additional defendants in an 28 attachment, plaintiff has provided only the names and addresses of those defendants. 1 | Specifically, plaintiff provides an Arizona address for defendant Vizihealthcare, a Nevada address 2 | for defendants Nevada Heart and Vascular Center, Professional Medical Consultants, and 3 | Lawrence M. Preston, and a Tennessee address for defendant Onpointe. (/d. at 6.) But—fatal to 4 | his assertion of diversity jurisdiction—plaintiff provides a California address for Aaron Duerksen. 5 | Ud. at 2.) Plaintiffs jurisdictional allegations are facially deficient because complete diversity is 6 | not alleged. Further, plaintiff has failed to respond to the court’s order to show cause as to why 7 | this case should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 8 Accordingly: 9 1. This action is dismissed, without prejudice, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction; 10 and 11 2. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case. 12 | IT IS SO ORDERED. si □ 8 Dated: _ February 12, 2020 Vil AL aoa 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28