Jue Wang v. Pui Sze Chan, et al.

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: March 23, 2026
• Docket: 5:25-cv-00342
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 JUE WANG, Case No. 25-cv-00342-NW

8 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE v. 9 Re: ECF No. 57 10 PUI SZE CHAN, et al., Defendants. 11

12 13 On November 13, 2025, Jue Wang (“Plaintiff”), a Canada citizen, filed an amended 14 complaint against two Hong Kong citizens, Pui Sze Chan and Hau Yin Mak, and Doe Defendants 15 (“Defendants”). Amended Compl., ECF No. 57. In the jurisdiction and venue section of the 16 amended complaint, Plaintiff cited 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d) as her basis for jurisdiction. Section 17 1332(d) concerns subject matter jurisdiction in class actions. This case is not a putative class 18 action. Id. 19 On November 28, 2025, Defendants moved to dismiss the first amended complaint, 20 arguing that Plaintiff’s claims are barred due to a lack of subject matter jurisdiction under the 21 Barton Doctrine, the requirement to first seek leave of the bankruptcy court. ECF No. 58. 22 Plaintiff opposed Defendants’ motion, arguing that “under the well-established principle of 23 territorial jurisdiction, the court in which the property is located has exclusive jurisdiction to 24 determine interests in that property.” ECF No. 61. Defendants filed a reply, maintaining the 25 arguments set forth in their motion to dismiss. ECF No. 63. Yet, neither party has explained how 26 this Court maintains subject matter jurisdiction in this case when all parties are citizens of foreign 27 states, and no U.S. citizen is joined to the suit. ] Federal district courts have original jurisdiction over civil actions in which the matter in 2 || controversy exceeds $75,000 and is between “citizens of a State and citizens or subjects of a 3 foreign state” or “citizens of different States and in which citizens or subjects of a foreign state are 4 || additional parties.” 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(2)-(3). The United States Supreme Court has long held 5 || that “the courts of the United States have no jurisdiction of cases between aliens.” Montalet v. 6 Murray, 8 U.S. 46, 47 (1807); Kramer v. Caribbean Mills, Inc., 394 U.S. 823, 824 n.2 (1969). 7 Section 1332(a) does not confer jurisdiction over suits solely between foreign citizens. See 8 || Faysound Ltd. v. United Coconut Chemicals, Inc., 878 F.2d 290, 294 (9th Cir. 1989). 9 Subject matter jurisdiction, unlike personal jurisdiction, cannot be waived. Augustine v. 10 United States, 704 F.2d 1074, 1077 (9th Cir. 1983). The Court has a duty to ensure that it has 11 subject matter jurisdiction at all times throughout the course of litigation. Gros Ventre Tribe v. 12 United States, 469 F.3d 801, 815 (9th Cir. 2006). Ifthe Court determines at any time that it lacks 13 subject-matter jurisdiction, the Court must dismiss the action. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). 14 The parties aae ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE why this case should not be dismissed 3 15 for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. If either party opposes the order to show cause, by no later a 16 || than 12:00 p.m. on Wednesday, March 25, 2026, they must file, and serve on the opposing party, 17 || an opposition of no more than 4 pages that explains how this Court maintains subject matter Z 18 || jurisdiction in this case in light of the Plaintiff's amended complaint. 19 A hearing on the order to show cause is set for Thursday, March 26, 2026, at 10 a.m. in 20 Courtroom 3, 5th Floor, Federal Courthouse, 280 South First Street, San Jose, California. The 21 parties must appear at the hearing in person; no remote appearances are permitted. The Court may 22 || determine that this matter is suitable for disposition without oral argument and vacate the hearing, 23 and if so, will inform the parties accordingly. The Court VACATES the hearing on Defendants’ 24 || motion to dismiss. 25 IT IS SO ORDERED. 26 Dated: March 23, 2026 , 7 os . Noél Wise 28 United States District Judge