Kleidman v. Murphy

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9

10 PETER KLEIDMAN, Case No. 22-cv-06355-NC 11 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AS 12 TO WHY THE COURT v. SHOULD NOT DISMISS 13 COMPLAINT FOR LACK OF BERNIE MURPHY, and others, SUBJECT MATTER 14 JURISDICTION Defendants. 15 Re: ECF 5 16 17 Plaintiff Peter Kleidman filed this action in federal court on October 21, 2022. 18 Plaintiff failed to plead the domiciles of himself and Defendant Leslie Quist to establish 19 diversity jurisdiction. The Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause as to why the action 20 should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See ECF 4. Plaintiff filed a 21 response to the Court’s order stating that he is “a resident of New England.” ECF 5 ¶ 3. 22 This response remains inadequate to establish the Court’s jurisdiction. Therefore, the 23 Court ORDERS Plaintiff to show cause as to why this matter should not be dismissed for 24 lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 25 Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction with subject matter jurisdiction over 26 matters authorized by the Constitution and Congress. See Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. 27 Co., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). Diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1) 1 || $75,000. Complete diversity of citizenship means that “each of the plaintiffs must be a 2 || citizen of a different state than each of the defendants.” Allstate Ins. Co. v. Hughes, 358 3 || F.3d 1089, 1095 (9th Cir. 2004) (emphasis added). State citizenship is determined by their 4 || state of domicile, meaning the location of the person’s permanent home where they intend 5 to remain or which they intend to return. Kanter v. Warner-Lambert Co., 265 F.3d 853, 6 || 857 (9th Cir. 2001) 7 Here, Plaintiff still fails to allege his state of domicile. As enumerated in the statute 8 || and caselaw, Plaintiff must allege his state of domicile, not general geographic region. 9 || Beyond establishing the Court’s jurisdiction, this requirement serves a practical purpose in 10 this case. On one hand, Plaintiff’s complaint lists an address in Stamford, Connecticut. 11 || ECF 1 at 1. On the other hand, the case’s ECF page lists Plaintiffs address as 9450 SW 3 12 Gemini Dr., Suite 84874, Beaverton, Oregon 97008. Based on this ambiguity, the Court, 13 || as well as Defendants, require clarity on Plaintiff’s domicile. C 14 Accordingly, Plaintiff is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE as to why this action 3 |} should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction by providing the location of 16 || his present domicile. Plaintiff must show cause in writing by December 19, 2022. 5 17 || Because Plaintiff is not represented by counsel, he may wish to seek assistance from the 5 18 ||} Federal Pro Se Program by calling 408-297-1480. Defendants are not required to respond 19 || to the Complaint pending disposition of this Order to Show Cause. 20 21 IT IS SO ORDERED. 22 23 Dated: December 5, 2022 h-_———— _ NATHANAEL M. COUSINS 24 United States Magistrate Judge 25 26 27 28