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 DISCHARGING ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AND DISMISSING FIRST 14 FMC TECHNOLOGIES SURFACE AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR LACK OF INTEGRATED SVCS, SUBJECT-MATTER JURISDICTION WITH 15 LEAVE TO AMEND Defendant. 16 (Doc. Nos. 5, 6) 17 18 19 On August 3, 2021, plaintiff Bryan Jose Corrales Loria filed a first amended complaint 20 (“FAC”) against defendant FMC Technologies Surface Integrated Svcs for claims brought under 21 California law. (Doc. No. 5.) On August 4, 2021, the court issued an order requiring plaintiff to 22 show cause in writing why the complaint should not be dismissed for lack of subject-matter 23 jurisdiction because plaintiff had not alleged his or defendant’s state of citizenship. (Doc. No. 6.) 24 On the same day, plaintiff’s counsel filed a declaration in response to the order to show cause. 25 (Doc. No. 7.) Therein, counsel apologizes to the court for not alleging facts in support of the 26 court’s subject-matter jurisdiction over this action. Although the declaration states defendant is a 27 citizen of Colorado (its state of incorporation) and Texas (its principal place of business), that is 28 not alleged in the complaint. See Leite v. Crane Co., 749 F.3d 1117, 1122 (9th Cir. 2014) 1 | (holding that facial attacks on subject-matter jurisdiction are resolved by looking at the 2 | allegations in the complaint and determining whether they “are sufficient as a legal matter to 3 | invoke the court’s jurisdiction”). 4 Moreover, an amended complaint must plead the diversity status of the plaintiff. For 5 | diversity purposes, the citizenship of a United States citizen is “determined by her state of 6 | domicile, not her state of residence.” Kanter v. Warner-Lamber Co., 265 F.3d 853, 857 (9th Cir. 7 | 2001). Thus, a United States citizen domiciled in the United States is a citizen of that state. 8 | District courts also have jurisdiction over cases that meet the matter-in-controversy requirement 9 | and are between “citizens of a State and citizens or subjects of a foreign state, except that the 10 | district courts shall not have original jurisdiction under this subsection of an action between 11 | citizens of a State and citizens or subjects of a foreign state who are lawfully admitted for 12 | permanent residence in the United States and are domiciled in the same State.” 28 U.S.C. 13 | § 1332(a)(2). Here, the only defendant named in this action appears to be a citizen of Texas and 14 | Colorado. If the amount in controversy is met, and plaintiff can allege that he is domiciled in 15 | California or that he is not domiciled in Texas or Colorado, diversity jurisdiction may be present. 16 | See id. § 1332(a). 17 Accordingly, 18 1. The order to show cause (Doc. No. 6) is DISCHARGED; 19 2. The first amended complaint (Doc. No. 5) is DISMISSED, for lack of subject-matter 20 jurisdiction; and 21 3. Plaintiff is granted leave to file a second amended complaint within fourteen days. 22 | IT IS SO ORDERED. me □ Dated: _ August 11, 2021 al, A □□□ 24 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 25 26 27 28