Gurinder Bal, et al. v. Ouraring Inc., et al.

N.D. California

Gurinder Bal, et al. v. Ouraring Inc., et al.

DecidedNovember 20, 2025

Docket3:25-cv-05518

StatusUnknown

This text of Gurinder Bal, et al. v. Ouraring Inc., et al. (Gurinder Bal, et al. v. Ouraring Inc., et al.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, N.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Gurinder Bal, et al. v. Ouraring Inc., et al., (N.D. Cal. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GURINDER BAL, et al., Case No. 25-cv-05518-RFL

Plaintiffs, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE v.

OURARING INC., et al., Defendants.

Plaintiffs are ordered to show cause why subject matter jurisdiction exists in this case. The complaint alleges that diversity jurisdiction exists under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. (Dkt. No. 1 ¶ 10.) But Plaintiffs are alleged to be foreign citizens, and one Defendant is also alleged to be a foreign citizen. (Id. ¶¶ 6–8.) While diversity jurisdiction may exist in certain cases involving foreign parties, see 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) (diversity requirement met between “citizens of a State and citizens or subjects of a foreign state” and between “citizens of different States and in which citizens or subjects of a foreign state are additional parties”), there is no diversity jurisdiction in cases involving a foreign citizen plaintiff suing a foreign citizen defendant, even if there is also a citizen defendant present. See Jungil Lee v. ANC Car Rental Corp., 220 Fed. Appx. 493, 495 (9th Cir. 2007) (dismissing case where foreign plaintiffs sued foreign and U.S. citizen defendants); see also Faysound, Ltd. v. United Coconut Chemicals, Inc., 878 F.2d 290, 294–95 (9th Cir. 1989). Therefore, it does not appear that diversity jurisdiction exists. Nor does it appear that any other basis for subject matter jurisdiction can been alleged. Therefore, Plaintiffs are ORDERED to file a written response of no more than five pages, by December 5, 2025, regarding the basis for subject matter jurisdiction. Defendants may file an optional reply of no more than five pages, by December 12, 2025. The case management conferences set for December 10, 2025, and associated deadlines are VACATED and will be reset, if necessary, after the Court receives the response to this Order.

IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: November 19, 2025

RITA F. LIN United States District Judge

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GURINDER BAL, et al., Case No. 25-cv-05518-RFL

Plaintiffs, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE v.

OURARING INC., et al., Defendants.

Plaintiffs are ordered to show cause why subject matter jurisdiction exists in this case. The complaint alleges that diversity jurisdiction exists under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. (Dkt. No. 1 ¶ 10.) But Plaintiffs are alleged to be foreign citizens, and one Defendant is also alleged to be a foreign citizen. (Id. ¶¶ 6–8.) While diversity jurisdiction may exist in certain cases involving foreign parties, see 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) (diversity requirement met between “citizens of a State and citizens or subjects of a foreign state” and between “citizens of different States and in which citizens or subjects of a foreign state are additional parties”), there is no diversity jurisdiction in cases involving a foreign citizen plaintiff suing a foreign citizen defendant, even if there is also a citizen defendant present. See Jungil Lee v. ANC Car Rental Corp., 220 Fed. Appx. 493, 495 (9th Cir. 2007) (dismissing case where foreign plaintiffs sued foreign and U.S. citizen defendants); see also Faysound, Ltd. v. United Coconut Chemicals, Inc., 878 F.2d 290, 294–95 (9th Cir. 1989). Therefore, it does not appear that diversity jurisdiction exists. Nor does it appear that any other basis for subject matter jurisdiction can been alleged. Therefore, Plaintiffs are ORDERED to file a written response of no more than five pages, by December 5, 2025, regarding the basis for subject matter jurisdiction. Defendants may file an optional reply of no more than five pages, by December 12, 2025. The case management conferences set for December 10, 2025, and associated deadlines are VACATED and will be reset, if necessary, after the Court receives the response to this Order.

IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: November 19, 2025

RITA F. LIN United States District Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Gurinder Bal, et al. v. Ouraring Inc., et al., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gurinder-bal-et-al-v-ouraring-inc-et-al-cand-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack