Guaranty Holdings of California, LLC v. Resort at Lake Tulloch, LLC ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 GUARANTY HOLDINGS OF No. 1:20-cv-00456-NONE-EPG CALIFORNIA, INC., LLC, a California 12 limited liability company, 13 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY CASE SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR LACK 14 v. OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION 15 RESORT AT LAKE TULLOCH, LLC, a (Doc. No. 1) California limited liability company, et al., 16 Defendants. 17 FOURTEEN-DAY DEADLINE 18 19 20 Plaintiff Guaranty Holdings of California, Inc., LLC, filed a complaint on March 30, 21 2020. (Doc. No. 1.) From the court’s initial review of the complaint, it appears that the court 22 lacks subject matter jurisdiction to consider the claims presented. 23 Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and lack inherent or general subject matter 24 jurisdiction. Federal courts can adjudicate only those cases which the United States Constitution 25 and Congress authorize them to adjudicate. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 511 U.S. 375 26 (1994). To proceed in federal court, a plaintiff’s pleading must establish the existence of subject 27 matter jurisdiction. Generally, there are two potential bases for federal subject matter 28 jurisdiction: (1) federal question jurisdiction, or (2) diversity jurisdiction. 1 Plaintiff's complaint indicates diversity as the basis for this court’s subject matter 2 | jurisdiction. (Doc. No. | at § 2.) Under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, district courts have jurisdiction over 3 | civil actions where there is complete diversity of citizenship and the amount in controversy 4 | exceeds $75,000. Morris v. Princess Cruises, Inc., 236 F.3d 1061, 1067 (9th Cir. 2001) (“Section 5 | 1332 requires complete diversity of citizenship; each of the plaintiffs must be a citizen of a 6 | different state than each of the defendants.”). Plaintiff, however, states that “jurisdiction in this 7 | court is proper in as one of the defendants [sic] resides outside this state... .” (Doc. No. | at 2.) 8 | That is not a correct statement of law. 9 Complete diversity among the parties appears to be lacking in this case insofar as plaintiff 10 | and at least one defendant are California residents, as indicated in the complaint. (Doc. No. | at 11 | 2-3.) Because diversity jurisdiction does not appear to be present, and because the complaint 12 | does not indicate the presence of a federal question, plaintiff is HEREBY ordered to show cause 13 | in writing within fourteen (14) days of the date of this order why this case should not be 14 | dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 15 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. ~ ‘ae 17 Dated: _ April 2, 2020 wae os oy ig UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28