Brooks v. Dhillon Brothers Incorporated

• Court: District Court, D. Arizona
• Decided: April 27, 2023
• Docket: 3:23-cv-08035
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

9 Andrea Brooks, et al., No. CV-23-08035-PCT-DWL

10 Plaintiffs, ORDER

11 v.

12 Dhillon Brothers Incorporated, et al.,

13 Defendants. 14 15 The Court has an independent obligation to determine whether it has subject-matter 16 jurisdiction. Ruhrgas AG v. Marathon Oil Co., 526 U.S. 574, 583 (1999). Pursuant to 17 Rule 12(h)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “[i]f the court determines at any 18 time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action.” 19 Diversity jurisdiction exists when there is complete diversity of citizenship between 20 the plaintiffs and the defendants and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, exclusive 21 of interests and costs. 28 U.S.C. § 1332. A controversy meets this requirement when “all 22 the persons on one side of it are citizens of different states from all the persons on the other 23 side.” Strawbridge v. Curtiss, 7 U.S. 267 (1806). 24 The party seeking to invoke diversity jurisdiction has the burden of 25 proof, Lew v. Moss, 797 F.2d 747, 749-50 (9th Cir. 1986), by a preponderance of the 26 evidence. McNatt v. Allied-Signal, Inc., 972 F.2d 1340 (9th Cir. 1992); see 13B Federal 27 Practice § 3611 at 521 & n. 34. “Absent unusual circumstances, a party seeking to invoke 28 diversity jurisdiction should be able to allege affirmatively the actual citizenship of the 1 relevant parties.” Kanter v. Warner-Lambert Co., 265 F.3d 853, 857 (9th Cir. 2001). 2 Plaintiffs bring this action asserting diversity as the sole basis of the Court’s subject 3 matter jurisdiction. (Doc. 1 ¶ 1.) Plaintiffs attempted to allege the citizenship of the parties 4 by alleging that Plaintiffs are “residents” of Texas and Defendant Jagjiwan Singh (“Singh”) 5 is a “resident” of California. (Id.) As to individual natural persons, an allegation about an 6 individual’s residence does not establish his or her citizenship for purposes of establishing 7 diversity jurisdiction. “It has long been settled that residence and citizenship [are] wholly 8 different things within the meaning of the Constitution and the laws defining and regulating 9 the jurisdiction of the . . . courts of the United States; and that a mere averment of residence 10 in a particular state is not an averment of citizenship in that state for the purpose of 11 jurisdiction.” Steigleder v. McQuesten, 198 U.S. 141, 143 (1905). “To be a citizen of a 12 state, a natural person must first be a citizen of the United States. The natural person’s 13 state citizenship is then determined by her state of domicile, not her state of residence. A 14 person’s domicile is her permanent home, where she resides with the intention to remain 15 or to which she intends to return.” Kanter, 265 F.3d at 858-59 (emphasis added) (citations 16 omitted). 17 Plaintiffs must amend the Complaint to allege the citizenship of the individual 18 natural persons who are parties to this lawsuit.1 NewGen, LLC v. Safe Cig, LLC, 840 F.3d 19 606, 612 (9th Cir. 2016) (“Courts may permit parties to amend defective allegations of 20 jurisdiction at any stage in the proceedings.”). 21 To ensure that the requirements of subject-matter jurisdiction are met, the Court will 22 require Singh to file a notice informing the Court of his state of domicile. 23 Accordingly, 24 IT IS ORDERED that Singh shall file a notice informing the Court of his state of 25 domicile by May 4, 2023. 26 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs shall file an amended complaint 27 1 This amended complaint pursuant to court order will not affect Plaintiffs’ right 28 under Rule 15(a)(1) to later amend once as a matter of course, if they choose to do so. See, e.g., Ramirez v. Cty. of San Bernardino, 806 F.3d 1002, 1006-09 (9th Cir. 2015). || properly stating a jurisdictional basis for this action no later than May 11, 2023. 2 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if Plaintiffs fail to timely file an amended || complaint, the Clerk of the Court shall dismiss this case, without prejudice, for lack of 4|| subject matter jurisdiction. 5 Dated this 27th day of April, 2023. 6 7 Lm ee” 8 f t _o—— Dominic W, Lanza 9 United States District Judge 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

-3-