Hao v. Chu

• Court: District Court, D. Arizona
• Decided: August 6, 2025
• Docket: 2:25-cv-02536
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

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

9 Yuming Hao, No. CV-25-02536-PHX-JJT

10 Plaintiff, ORDER

11 v.

12 Chu Chu,

13 Defendant. 14 15 Plaintiff Yuming Hao, a resident of the People’s Republic of China, has filed a 16 Complaint (Doc. 1, Compl.) against Defendant Chu Chu, who Plaintiff alleges is a resident 17 of Malaysia. Plaintiff brings two claims, namely: (1) for a declaratory judgment that 18 Plaintiff is the rightful owner of the domain name “968.com”; and (2) for breach of 19 contract. Plaintiff asserts that the Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this case 20 pursuant to the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201 et seq. (Compl. ¶ 5.) 21 The United States Supreme Court has made clear that a federal court must not 22 disregard or evade the limits on its subject matter jurisdiction. Owen Equip. & Erections 23 Co. v. Kroger, 437 U.S. 365, 374 (1978). Thus, a federal court is obligated to inquire into 24 its subject matter jurisdiction in each case and to dismiss a case when subject matter 25 jurisdiction is lacking. See Valdez v. Allstate Ins. Co., 372 F.3d 1115, 1116 (9th Cir. 2004); 26 Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). “[S]ubject-matter jurisdiction, because it involves a court’s power 27 to hear a case, can never be forfeited or waived.” United States v. Cotton, 535 U.S. 625, 28 630 (2002). 1 Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion in the Complaint, “[t]he Declaratory Judgment Act 2 does not provide an independent jurisdictional basis for suits in federal court,” but rather 3 “only permits the district court to adopt a specific remedy when jurisdiction exists.” Fiedler 4 v. Clark, 714 F.2d 77, 79 (9th Cir. 1983) (citing Skelly Oil Co. v. Phillips Petroleum Co., 5 339 U.S. 667, 671–74 (1950)). Plaintiff does not raise a federal question in the Complaint 6 such that the Court would have jurisdiction over this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. 7 And the Court has no jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims in the absence of 8 diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. That statute provides that federal courts have 9 jurisdiction over actions between citizens of different states where the amount in 10 controversy exceeds $75,000. 11 According to Plaintiff’s allegations, neither Plaintiff nor Defendant is a citizen of 12 any state, but rather they are both citizens of foreign nations. While 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(3) 13 provides district courts with jurisdiction over civil actions between “citizens of different 14 States and in which citizens or subjects of a foreign state are additional parties,” there must 15 be diverse Americans on both sides of the dispute for diversity jurisdiction to exist. Voltage 16 Pictures, LLC v. Gussi, S.A. de C.V., 92 F.4th 815, 822 (9th Cir. 2024); Transure, Inc. v. 17 Marsh & McLennan, Inc., 766 F.2d 1297, 1298–99 (9th Cir. 1985). Here, there are no 18 Americans on either side of the dispute, and diversity jurisdiction thus does not exist. 19 It is a well-settled principle of law that “the jurisdiction of the court depends upon 20 the state of things at the time of the action brought.” Mollan v. Torrance, 22 U.S. 537, 539 21 (1824). And a plaintiff may not make a post-filing amendment such as a change in a party’s 22 citizenship or the addition of a new party to cure a lack of subject matter jurisdiction at the 23 outset. Grupo Dataflux v. Atlas Glob. Grp., L.P., 514 U.S. 567, 568, 574–75 (2004). 24 Because Plaintiff cannot cure the lack of diversity jurisdiction by amendment of the 25 Complaint, the Court must dismiss this case. 26 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED dismissing this case for a lack of subject matter 27 jurisdiction. 28 . . . 1 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED directing the Clerk of Court to close this matter. 2 Dated this 6th day of August, 2025. CN

4 wef holee— Unifgd StatesDistrict Judge 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

-3-