DeFazio v. Boyden World Corporation ( 2019 )

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 JEFF DEFAZIO, Case No. 19-cv-06121-JST 8 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: 9 v. SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION 10 BOYDEN WORLD CORPORATION, et al., 11 Defendants. 12 13 Plaintiff Jeff DeFazio’s complaint does not contain the jurisdictional statement required by 14 Civil Local Rule 3-5. See ECF No. 1. He alleges only state-law claims, id., and his amended civil 15 cover sheet asserts federal jurisdiction on the basis of diversity. ECF No. 3. The amended civil 16 cover sheet indicates that DeFazio is a citizen of California and that Defendants are citizens of 17 another state.1 Id. 18 However, the complaint does not allege the citizenship of the parties. For example, it 19 alleges the residence of DeFazio and Defendant Dick McCallister, ECF No. 1 ¶¶ 1, 4, but a 20 “natural person’s state citizenship is . . . determined by her state of domicile, not her state of 21 residence. A person’s domicile is her permanent home, where she resides with the intention to 22 remain or to which she intends to return.” Kanter v. Warner-Lambert Co., 265 F.3d 853, 857 (9th 23 Cir. 2001). Likewise, the complaint alleges that Defendant “RAM SF LLC is a limited liability 24 company licensed to do business in California and located in San Francisco, California,” ECF No. 25 1 ¶ 3, but it fails to allege the identity or citizenship of any of the members of the limited liability 26 27 1 company (“LLC”), which the Court must consider to determine the LLC’s citizenship. Johnson v. 2 Columbia Props. Anchorage, LP, 437 F.3d 894, 899 (9th Cir. 2006). As to Defendant Boyden 3 || World Corporation, the complaint alleges only that it “do[es] business in San Francisco, 4 || California,” and is “headquartered in New York,” ECF No. 1 § 2, but a corporation is considered a 5 citizen of every state in which it has been incorporated and of the “state where it has its principal 6 place of business,” 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1). 7 “Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. They possess only that power authorized 8 by Constitution and statute[.]” Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 9 (1994). This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over a case only if the complaint alleges a 10 federal cause of action or the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 and the parties are citizens 11 of different states. 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (“The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil 12 || actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.”); 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) 5 13 (“The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions where the matter in 14 controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000 . . . and is between . . . citizens of different 3 15 States[.]”). The burden of establishing federal subject matter jurisdiction rests on the party 16 seeking to invoke it. 3 17 Because the citizenship of the parties is unknown, the Court cannot determine whether it 18 || has subject matter jurisdiction over this case. DeFazio is ordered to show cause, within 21 days of 19 || the date of this order, as to why this case should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter 20 || jurisdiction. If Defendants wish to respond, they may file a responsive brief within seven days 21 thereafter. 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. 23 Dated: December 23, 2019 . 24 JON S. TIGA 25 States District 26 27 28