Bryan J.C. Loria v. FMC Technologies Surface Integrated Svcs ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 BRYAN JOSE CORRALES LORIA, No. 1:21-cv-01142-NONE-JLT 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY COMPLAINT SHOULD NOT BE 14 FMC TECHNOLOGIES SURFACE DISMISSED FOR LACK OF SUBJECT- INTEGRATED SVCS, MATTER JURISDICTION 15 Defendant. (Doc. No. 1) 16 17 18 On June 28, 2021, plaintiff Bryan Jose Corrales Loria commenced this action by filing a 19 complaint against his former employer, defendant FMC Technologies Surface Integrated Svcs, 20 asserting various California state law claims. (Doc. No. 1.) The Clerk of the Court issued a 21 summons that same day. (Doc. No. 3.) The summons has not yet been returned executed, nor has 22 defendant appeared in this action. 23 In his complaint plaintiff alleges that he “was and is a resident of the County of Kern, 24 State of California,” (Doc. No. 1 ¶ 1), and that defendant “has been a foreign corporation that 25 employed Plaintiff” in Bakersfield, California, (id. ¶ 2). There are no allegations concerning 26 plaintiff’s citizenship, defendant’s principal place of business, or defendant’s place of 27 incorporation in the complaint. Although the complaint does not allege the basis for this court’s 28 ///// 1 Jurisdiction over the action,1 the civil cover sheet filed with the complaint indicates that the case 2 is brought by plaintiff under diversity jurisdiction. (Doc. No. 2.) 3 Under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a), federal district courts have jurisdiction over certain actions 4 between citizens of different states. Complete diversity is a requirement of the statute. Thus, the 5 “citizenship of each plaintiff [must be] diverse from the citizenship of each defendant.” 6 Caterpillar Inc. v. Lewis, 519 U.S. 61, 68 (1996). For diversity purposes, the citizenship of an 7 individual is “determined by her state of domicile, not her state of residence.” Kanter v. Warner- 8 Lamber Co., 265 F.3d 853, 857 (9th Cir. 2001); accord Jeffcott v. Donovan, 135 F.2d 213, 214 9 (9th Cir. 1943) (holding that complaint did not allege diversity where plaintiff alleged residency, 10 but not citizenship, of the parties). “[A] corporation shall be deemed to be a citizen of any State 11 by which it has been incorporated and of the State where it has its principal place of business 12 . . . .” Lincoln Prop. Co. v. Roche, 546 U.S. 81, 89 (2005) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1). 13 The burden of establishing subject-matter jurisdiction “rests upon the party asserting 14 jurisdiction.” Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994); accord 15 Romero v. Securus Techs., Inc., 216 F. Supp. 3d 1078, 1085 (S.D. Cal. 2016) (“As the party 16 putting the claims before the court, Plaintiffs bear the burden of establishing jurisdiction.” (citing 17 id.)). “If the court determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must 18 dismiss the action.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). It may do so sua sponte, even before service of 19 process. Franklin v. State of Or., State Welfare Div., 662 F.2d 1337, 1342 (9th Cir. 1981). 20 Accordingly, within fourteen days of the issuance of this order, plaintiff shall show cause 21 in writing why this action should not be dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. 22 Alternatively, within fourteen days, plaintiff may file an amended complaint which contains 23 allegations addressing the court’s jurisdiction and the issues identified herein or may voluntarily 24 ///// 25 ///// 26 ///// 27 1 Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(1), every pleading for a claim for relief must 28 contain “short and plain statement of the grounds for the court’s jurisdiction, unless the court 1 | dismiss this case. Plaintiff is warned that if he fails to timely comply with this order, the court 2 || may dismiss the case due to lack of jurisdiction. 3 | IT IS SO ORDERED. a 7. Dated: _ August 3, 2021 VL AL oye 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28