Jackson Kwok v. Genera Corporation

• Court: District Court, C.D. California
• Decided: January 27, 2023
• Docket: 8:22-cv-01949
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

Case 8:22-cv-01949-FWS-KES Document 30 Filed 01/27/23 Page 1 of 3 Page ID #:717

__________________________________________________________________ UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

Case No.: 8:22-cv-01949-FWS-KES Date: January 27, 2023 Title: Jackson Kwok v. Genera Corporation et al.

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

Melissa H. Kunig N/A Deputy Clerk Court Reporter

Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs: Attorneys Present for Defendants:

Not Present Not Present

PROCEEDINGS: (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION AND CONTINUING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS [27]

Based on the Notice of Removal and Complaint in this action, the court appears to lack subject matter jurisdiction. “Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3) provides that a court may raise the question of subject matter jurisdiction, sua sponte, at any time during the pendency of the action, even on appeal.” Snell v. Cleveland, Inc., 316 F.3d 822, 826 (9th Cir. 2002). Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction with subject matter jurisdiction over only those suits authorized by the Constitution or Congress. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). A defendant may remove an action from state to federal court only when the suit could have been filed in federal court originally. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a); see also Syngenta Crop Prot., Inc. v. Henson, 537 U.S. 28, 33 (2002). If it appears that the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction at any time before final judgment, the court must remand the action. Id. § 1447(c). The removal statute is “strictly construed against removal jurisdiction,” and the party invoking the removal statute bears the burden of establishing federal jurisdiction. California ex rel. Lockyer v. Dynegy, Inc., 375 F.3d 831, 838 (9th Cir. 2004) (citing Ethridge v. Harbor House Rest., 861 F.2d 1389, 1393 (9th Cir. 1988)).

“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 ______________________________________________________________________________ CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL 1 Case 8:22-cv-01949-FWS-KES Document 30 Filed 01/27/23 Page 2 of 3 Page ID #:718

__________________________________________________________________ UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case No.: 8:22-cv-01949-FWS-KES Date: January 27, 2023 Title: Jackson Kwok v. Genera Corporation et al. jurisdiction under § 1332 exists only where each defendant is a citizen of a different state than each plaintiff and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. See Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Servs., Inc., 545 U.S. 546, 552, 554 (2005); Owen Equip. & Erection Co. v. Kroger, 437 U.S. 365, 373-74 (1978). Generally, federal question jurisdiction under § 1331 is found where “a well-pleaded complaint establishes either that federal law creates the cause of action or that the plaintiff’s right to relief necessarily depends on resolution of a substantial question of federal law.” Empire Healthchoice Assur., Inc. v. McVeigh, 547 U.S. 677, 690 (2006) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).

Plaintiff Jackson Kwok is alleged to be a resident of California. (See Dkt. 1-1 ¶ 8.) The citizenships of Defendants Jerry Wu and Chun Chi Wu are not alleged. (See generally Dkt. 1.) Defendants Genera Corporation, a California corporation, T.Y.C. Brother Industrial Co., Ltd., and Innova Holding Corporation, are alleged to “conduct business” in California. (Dkt. 1-1 ¶ 6.) The entity forms of defendants T.Y.C. Brother Industrial Co., Ltd., and Innova Holding Corporation are not alleged. (See generally Dkt. 1.) Accordingly, the Notice of Removal and Complete do not demonstrate the parties are completely diverse. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332; Owen, 437 U.S. at 373-74 (complete diversity of parties is required); Kanter v. Warner-Lambert Co., 265 F.3d 853, 857 (9th Cir. 2001) (citizenships of individual parties); Johnson v. Columbia Props. Anchorage, LP, 437 F.3d 894, 899 (9th Cir. 2006) (citizenship inquiry varies based on the form of the entity where the litigant is not a natural person); Hertz Corp. v. Friend, 559 U.S. 77, 92-93 (2010) (citizenships of corporations).

Defendants’ sole asserted basis for federal jurisdiction question is that “Plaintiff alleges in his seventh cause of action for Violation of Business and Professions Code § 17200 and Unfair Methods of Competition, 15 U.S.C. § 45.” (See Dkt. 1 ¶ 6.) California Business and Professions Code § 17200 is not a federal law. Additionally, “private litigants may not invoke the jurisdiction of the federal district courts by alleging that defendants engaged in business practices proscribed by [15 U.S.C. § 45]. The [Federal Trade Commission] Act rests initial remedial power solely in the Federal Trade Commission.” Dreisbach v. Murphy, 658 F.2d 720, 730 (9th Cir. 1981); see also Carlson v. Coca-Cola Co., 483 F.2d 279, 280 (9th Cir. 1973). Additionally, Plaintiff’s purported FTCA claim appears to concern no material issues of federal law. Cf. Gunn v. Minton, 568 U.S. 251, 258 (2013). Because no cognizable federal claim ______________________________________________________________________________ CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL 2 Case 8:22-cv-01949-FWS-KES Document 30 Filed 01/27/23 Page 3 of 3 Page ID #:719

__________________________________________________________________ UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case No.: 8:22-cv-01949-FWS-KES Date: January 27, 2023 Title: Jackson Kwok v. Genera Corporation et al. appears on the face of Plaintiff’s compliant, the court concludes that it appears to lack subject matter jurisdiction over this action. See Yokeno v. Mafnas, 973 F.2d 803, 807-09 (9th Cir. 1992).

Accordingly, the court ORDERS the parties to show cause, in writing, why this case should not be remanded for lack of subject matter jurisdiction on or before February 6, 2023. The court sua sponte CONTINUES Defendants’ noticed Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (Dkt. 27) from February 23, 2023, at 10:00 a.m. to March 2, 2023, at 10:00 a.m.

Initials of Deputy Clerk: mku

______________________________________________________________________________ CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL 3