Lorraine Johnson v. Michael Rene Angel

• Court: District Court, C.D. California
• Decided: August 26, 2025
• Docket: 5:24-cv-00877
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 LORRAINE JOHNSON, No. 5:24-cv-00877-JAK-PD 11 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: 12 SUBJECT-MATTER JURISDICTION v. 13 MICHAEL RENE ANGEL, et al., 14 Defendants. 15 16 17 On November 8, 2023, Lorraine Johnson (“Plaintiff” or “Johnson”) brought this 18 action against Michael Rene Angel (“Defendant” or “Angel), Does 1-100, and Roes 1- 19 100, in the Superior Court of California for the County of San Bernardino. Dkt. 1 The 20 Complaint alleged claims arising from a personal relationship between the parties. Id. at 21 7–18. The Complaint advanced six causes of action based on California law: (1) battery; 22 (2) assault; (3) trespass; (4) false imprisonment; (5) intentional infliction of emotional 23 distress; and (6) negligent infliction of emotional distress. On April 24, 2024, Defendant 24 filed a notice of removal on the basis of diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332 25 and 1441. Dkt. 1 at 1–2. On July 29, 2025, an Order issued striking Defendant’s Answer 26 for failure to comply with certain orders with respect to participating in the litigation, 27 and directing the Clerk to enter the default of Defendant. Dkt. 39. Defendant’s default 1 was entered by the Clerk on July 30, 2025. Dkt. 40. On August 18, 2025, Plaintiffs filed 2 a Motion for Default Judgment. Dkt. 43. 3 Defendant’s notice of removal states that diversity jurisdiction is satisfied because, 4 “at the time of the commencement of this action and at all times since,” Plaintiff resided 5 in California and Defendant resided in Nevada. Id. at 2. However, the Complaint in this 6 matter alleges that, at the time of filing of the Complaint, both Plaintiff and Defendant 7 resided in San Bernardino County, California. Dkt. 1 at 7. 8 The parties raised this dispute in a June 7, 2024 Joint Report. Dkt. 10 at 2 (stating 9 Plaintiff’s position that Defendant resided in California at the time of filing, and 10 Defendant’s position that Plaintiff’s allegations as to Defendant’s residence at the time 11 of filing were “erroneous[]”). Given this dispute, Defendant was ordered to show cause 12 on or before July 1, 2024 why this action should not be remanded for lack of subject- 13 matter jurisdiction. Dkt. 12 at 1. That order required Defendant to provide a declaration 14 and evidence that Defendant “is a citizen of Nevada, and was one at the time this action 15 was commenced and at the time of removal.” Id. Defendant had not filed a response 16 either prior to the entry of his default or thereafter. 17 “Diversity removal requires complete diversity, meaning that each plaintiff must 18 be of a different citizenship from each defendant.” Grancare, LLC v. Thrower by & 19 through Mills, 889 F.3d 543, 548 (9th Cir. 2018) (citing Caterpillar Inc. v. Lewis, 519 20 U.S. 61, 68 (1996)). In the Ninth Circuit, complete diversity “is determined (and must 21 exist) as of the time the complaint is filed and removal is effected.” Strotek Corp. v. Air 22 Transp. Ass’n. of Am., 300 F.3d 1129, 1131–32 (9th Cir. 2002) (emphasis added) (citing 23 Morongo Band of Mission Indians v. California State Bd. of Equalization, 858 F.2d 24 1376, 1380 (9th Cir. 1988) (diversity is determined by citizenship of parties as of filing 25 of the original complaint); Newcombe v. Adolf Coors Co., 157 F.3d 686, 690 (9th Cir. 26 1998) (diversity must exist when action is removed)); see also Spekulation Orphan 27 Relief Tr. v. NewRez, LLC, No. 23-3484, 2025 WL 2028306, at *1 (9th Cir. July 21, 1 2025) (same); Grupo Dataflux v. Atlas Glob. Grp., L.P., 541 U.S. 567, 573 (2004) 2 (“[T]he jurisdiction of the court depends upon the state of things at the time of the action 3 brought.”); Gallo v. Unknown No. of Identity Thieves, 254 F. Supp. 3d 1096, 1100 (N.D. 4 Cal. 2017) (diversity must be assessed at the time of filing and time of removal). Courts 5 have an obligation to consider subject-matter jurisdiction sua sponte. United States v. 6 Keller, 2 F.4th 1278, 1282 (9th Cir. 2021). 7 According to the allegations in the Complaint, there was no diversity of 8 citizenship when it was filed. It alleges that both parties were then citizens of California. 9 Moreover, Plaintiff subsequently represented both that she is a citizen of California, and 10 that, when Plaintiff “initially filed suit,” Defendant was a “California resident . . . .” Dkt. 11 10 at 2. As noted, Defendant’s notice of removal stated that he was a citizen of Nevada 12 both at the time of filing and at the time of removal, which would have satisfied diversity 13 of citizenship. As also noted, this dispute resulted in the issuance of an Order to Show 14 Cause as to jurisdiction. Dkt. 12. Although directed to make a filing sufficient to show 15 diversity jurisdiction at the time of filing of the action, Defendant never did so. 16 This ongoing issue as to subject matter jurisdiction must be resolved forthwith, in 17 light of the pending motion for default judgment and the obligation of the Court to 18 ensure that there is jurisdiction over the pending action. Accordingly Plaintiff is 19 ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE why this action should not be remanded to the 20 Superior Court for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Plaintiff shall file a response to 21 this Order to Show Cause, not to exceed ten pages, on or before September 3, 2025. If 22 Plaintiff then asserts that there was diversity jurisdiction at the time of filing and at the 23 time of removal, she shall provide evidence as to the basis for that position, as well as an 24 explanation as to why she previously asserted in this action that there was no diversity 25 jurisdiction at the time of filing. The Defendant may file a response not to exceed ten 26 pages, on or before September 10, 2025. As of that date, whether or not Defendant has 27 1 || made any responsive filing, based on a review of the filing(s), the matter will be taken 2 || under submission or set for a hearing. 3 4 5 || ITISSO ORDERED. 6 YW 7 | Dated: August 26, 2025 C} Ie 8 John A. Kronstadt 9 United States District Judge 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19