Li Ching Chu v. Tribal Technologies, Inc.

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAY 29 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
LI CHING CHU and ROBERT CHING No. 13-15482
LIANG HUNG, individually and as
successors in interest to Cindy Hung, D.C. No. 3:12-cv-05306-WHA
deceased,
Plaintiffs - Appellants, MEMORANDUM*
v.
TRIBAL TECHNOLOGIES, Incorporated;
et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
William Alsup, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted May 15, 2014**
San Francisco, California
Before: GRABER, W. FLETCHER, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Li Ching Chu and Robert Ching Liang Hung (“Plaintiffs”), as individuals
and as successors in interest to their daughter, Cindy Hung (“decedent”), appeal the
district court’s dismissal of their action against defendants Tribal Technologies,
Inc., Tribal Brands, Inc., and several named individuals. We have jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
1. The district court correctly determined that Plaintiffs failed to allege the
facts necessary to establish complete diversity as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1332.
See McNutt v. Gen. Motors Acceptance Corp. of Ind., 298 U.S. 178, 182 (1936).
The complaint alleges that Plaintiffs are citizens of Taiwan, but is silent on their
domicile and legal status in the United States. To establish diversity jurisdiction
for Plaintiffs’ individual claims, they also must allege that they are not lawfully
admitted permanent residents domiciled in the same state as any defendant. 28
U.S.C. § 1332(a)(2). For Plaintiffs’ successors-in-interest claims, they are
“deemed to be a citizen only of the same State as the decedent.” 28 U.S.C. §
1332(c)(2). Plaintiffs failed to allege any facts about the decedent’s citizenship for
diversity purposes. The district court therefore properly concluded that Plaintiffs
failed to allege the facts necessary to establish jurisdiction for either the claims
they brought as individuals or the claims they brought as successors in interest.
See McNutt, 298 U.S. at 182.
-2-
2. The district court did not abuse its discretion when it dismissed for failure to
prosecute after Plaintiffs failed to meet the court’s deadline to file a motion for
leave to amend their complaint. See Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1232 (9th
Cir. 1984) (establishing that a district court’s dismissal for failure to prosecute is
reviewed for abuse of discretion). Failure to comply with a court order is grounds
for dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). “The plaintiff has the
burden of persuading the court of the reasonableness of his delay and the lack of
prejudice to the defendant.” Franklin, 745 F.2d at 1232. Here, there is nothing in
the district court record to indicate that Plaintiffs provided any explanation for their
failure to seek leave to amend. They have therefore failed to carry their burden of
demonstrating that the court acted unreasonably in dismissing the complaint.
3. We decline to reach the remaining issues on appeal. Having determined that
subject matter jurisdiction did not exist, the district court should have dismissed
Plaintiffs’ complaint without addressing the merits of the defendants’ motions to
dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp.,
546 U.S. 500, 514 (2006) (“[W]hen a federal court concludes that it lacks
subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the complaint in its entirety.”);
Moore v. Maricopa Cnty. Sheriff’s Office, 657 F.3d 890, 895 (9th Cir. 2011) (“[A]
district court must first determine whether it has jurisdiction before it can decide
-3-
whether a complaint states a claim.”). Because the district court should have gone
no further than its determination that subject matter jurisdiction did not exist, we
limit our review accordingly. See Bender v. Williamsport Area Sch. Dist., 475 U.S.
534, 541 (1986).
AFFIRMED.
-4-