Eritrean Association in Greater Seattle v. Gebrekidan

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5

6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 9 10 ERITREAN ASSOCIATION OF CASE NO. 3:24-cv-05517-DGE ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 12 Plaintiff, v. 13 HENOCK TECKLE GEBREKIDAN et al., 14 Defendant. 15 16 This matter comes before the Court on its own review of the record. Plaintiff filed this 17 case in federal court, alleging that the Court “has subject matter jurisdiction over this proceeding 18 under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 because Plaintiff and Defendants are citizens of different states and the 19 amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.” (Dkt. No. 1 at 5.) Plaintiff asserts that the thirteen 20 named Defendants “reside[] in” Maryland, California, Oklahoma, Texas, North Carolina, 21 Georgia, Pennsylvania, and Kentucky. (Id. at 3–4.) Plaintiff asserts that Plaintiff, the Eritrean 22 Association in Greater Seattle, is “organized and existing under the laws of Washington.” (Id. at 23 24 1 2.) However, Plaintiff’s complaint does not identify each party’s state of citizenship. As the 2 Ninth Circuit explains: 3 [T]he diversity jurisdiction statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1332, speaks of citizenship, not of residency. To be a citizen of a state, a natural person must first be a citizen of the 4 United States. The natural person’s state citizenship is then determined by her state of domicile, not her state of residence. A person’s domicile is her permanent 5 home, where she resides with the intention to remain or to which she intends to return. A person residing in a given state is not necessarily domiciled there, and 6 thus is not necessarily a citizen of that state.

7 Kanter v. Warner-Lambert Co., 265 F.3d 853, 857 (9th Cir. 2001) (internal citations omitted); 8 see also E. Bay L. v. Ford Motor Co., 2015 WL 13926922, at *1 (9th Cir. May 15, 2015) 9 (diverse residency is not sufficient to establish diversity jurisdiction). For purposes of 10 identifying the citizenship of a corporation, “a corporation shall be deemed to be a citizen of 11 every State and foreign state by which it has been incorporated and of the State or foreign state 12 where it has its principal place of business.” 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1). 13 “The diversity jurisdiction statute, as construed for nearly 200 years, requires that to 14 bring a diversity case in federal court . . . each plaintiff must be diverse from each 15 defendant.” Lee v. American Nat’l Ins. Co., 260 F.3d 997, 1004 (9th Cir. 2001). Failure to meet 16 the requirements of the diversity statute for each defendant destroys “‘complete diversity,’ 17 rendering the entire case beyond the federal court’s power to decide.” Id. at 1005. “Absent 18 unusual circumstances, a party seeking to invoke diversity jurisdiction should be able to allege 19 affirmatively the actual citizenship of the relevant parties.” Kanter, 265 F.3d at 857. 20 Accordingly, Plaintiff is ordered to show cause, no later than August 21, 2024, why this 21 case should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction based on the failure to 22 identify each party’s state of citizenship. Alternatively, Plaintiff may file an amended complaint 23 by such date addressing the deficiencies identified herein. 24 1 Dated this 14th day of August, 2024. 2 A 3 David G. Estudillo 4 United States District Judge 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24