Hanh Thi My Do v. MLG assessment Recovery

Opinion

_____________________________________________________________________ UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

Case No.: 8:23-cv-00553-FWS-DFM Date: April 19, 2023 Title: Hanh Thi My Do v. MLG assessment Recovery et al.

Present: HONORABLE FRED W. SLAUGHTER, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Melissa H. Kunig N/A Deputy Clerk Court Reporter

Attorneys Present for Plaintiff: Attorneys Present for Defendants:

Not Present Not Present

PROCEEDINGS: (IN CHAMBERS): ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION AND DEFERRING RULING ON PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS [2]

This action was filed in this court on March 27, 2023. (Dkt. 1.) Jurisdiction is alleged on the basis of diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332. However, based on the record, including the complaint, the court observes that it may lack subject matter jurisdiction because the Complaint does not adequately allege complete diversity of all parties. (See Dkt. 1.)

“Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, possessing only that power authorized by Constitution and statute.” Gunn v. Minton, 568 U.S. 251, 256 (2013) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Courts “have an independent obligation to determine whether subject-matter jurisdiction exists, even in the absence of a challenge from any party.” Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 501 (2006). “In civil cases, subject matter jurisdiction is generally conferred upon federal district courts either through diversity jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1332, or federal question jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1331.” Peralta v. Hisp. Bus., Inc., 419 F.3d 1064, 1069 (9th Cir. 2005).

Diversity jurisdiction requires complete diversity between the parties and that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. See Strawbridge v. Curtiss, 7 U.S. (3 Cranch) 267, 267 (1806); 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a); Owen Equip. & Erection Co. v. Kroger, 437 U.S. 365, 373 (1978) _____________________________________________________________________ UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case No.: 8:23-cv-00553-FWS-DFM Date: April 19, 2023 Title: Hanh Thi My Do v. MLG assessment Recovery et al. (“[D]iversity jurisdiction does not exist unless each defendant is a citizen of a different State from each plaintiff.”); Matheson v. Progressive Specialty Ins. Co., 319 F.3d 1089, 1090 (9th Cir. 2003) (“Jurisdiction founded on 28 U.S.C. § 1332 requires that the parties be in complete diversity and the amount in controversy exceed $75,000.”); Lee v. Am. Nat. Ins. Co., 260 F.3d 997, 1004 (9th Cir. 2001) (“The diversity jurisdiction statute, as construed for nearly 200 years, requires that to bring a diversity case in federal court against multiple defendants, each plaintiff must be diverse from each defendant.”). If a party is a partnership, limited liability company, or other unincorporated association, the court must consider the citizenship of each of the partners, including limited partners, or members, must be alleged. Carden v. Arkoma Assocs., 494 U.S. 185, 195-96 (1990); Johnson v. Columbia Props. Anchorage, LP, 437 F.3d 894, 899 (9th Cir. 2006). If a party is a corporation, the complaint must allege both its state(s) of incorporation and principal place of business. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c); Harris v. Rand, 682 F.3d 846, 850 (9th Cir. 2012). If a party is a natural person, the complaint must allege their state of domicile, which is their permanent home, where they reside with the intention to remain or to which they intend to return. Ehrman v. Cox Commc’ns, Inc., 932 F.3d 1223, 1227 (9th Cir. 2019).

Federal question jurisdiction refers the court’s original jurisdiction over civil actions “arising under” the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. Negrete v. City of Oakland, 46 F.4th 811, 816 (9th Cir. 2022); 28 U.S.C. § 1331. A case “arises under” federal law when federal law creates the cause of action asserted or in limited circumstances where a state law claim presents a federal issue that is “(1) necessarily raised, (2) actually disputed, (3) substantial, and (4) capable of resolution in federal court without disrupting the federal-state balance approved by Congress.” Gunn, 568 U.S. at 257-58.

In this action, Plaintiff brings a claim for breach of contract against several named Defendants. (Dkt. 1.) The Complaint does not assert a claim arising under federal law and does not adequately specify the citizenships of the parties in this action. (See id.) Accordingly, the court appears to lack subject matter jurisdiction over this action.

Accordingly, the court ORDERS Plaintiff to show cause in writing no later than May 3, 2023, why this action should not be dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Failure to respond by the above date will result in the Court dismissing this action _____________________________________________________________________ UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case No.: 8:23-cv-00553-FWS-DFM Date: April 19, 2023 Title: Hanh Thi My Do v. MLG assessment Recovery et al. without prejudice as to any action filed in state court without further notice. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Link v. Wabash R.R., 370 U.S. 626, 630-31 (1962) (“The authority of a court to dismiss sua sponte for lack of prosecution has generally been considered an ‘inherent power,’ governed . . . by the control necessarily vested in courts to manage their own affairs so as to achieve the orderly and expeditious disposition of cases.”); Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 640-43 (9th Cir. 2002) (affirming sua sponte dismissal with prejudice “for failure to prosecute and for failure to comply with a court order”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3) (“If the court determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action.”).

Given the deadline set by the court for Plaintiff to respond to this Order, the court DEFERS ruling on Plaintiff’s pending Request to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Dkt. 2) for an additional thirty (30) days.

IT IS SO ORDERED.