1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 ORKIDEH DAROODI, et al., Case No.: 23-cv-1490-RBM-JLB
11 Plaintiffs, ORDER: 12 v. (1) DENYING MOTION TO 13 BARRY D. KITAEN, et al., DISMISS AS MOOT 14 Defendants. (2) DENYING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE 15 ELECTRONICALLY 16 (3) ORDERING PLAINTIFFS TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THIS 17 CASE SHOULD NOT BE 18 DISMISSED FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER 19 JURISDICTION 20 [Docs. 3, 5] 21 22 23 Pending before the Court is a Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendants Barry David 24 Kitaen, as an individual, and Barry David Kitaen, as Trustee of the Mona Shahrokhi 2000 25 Trust (“Defendants”). (Doc. 3.) Defendants move to dismiss the initial Complaint filed 26 by pro se Plaintiffs Orkideh Daroodi, Parvin Afsharpour, and Ali Shahrokhi (Doc. 1). 27 Plaintiff Shahrokhi has also filed a Motion for Pro Se Plaintiff to File Electronically 28 (“Motion to File Electronically”). (Doc. 5.) 1 For the reasons set forth below, the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is DENIED as 2 moot based on Plaintiffs’ timely filing of a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) (Doc. 6). 3 However, Plaintiffs are ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE why this case should not be 4 dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Court also DENIES without 5 prejudice Shahrokhi’s Motion for Leave to File Electronically. 6 I. BACKGROUND 7 A. Initial Complaint 8 On August 14, 2023, Plaintiffs Daroodi, Afsharpour, and Shahrokhi filed a verified 9 Complaint asserting seven state law claims against Defendants. (Doc. 1 at 11–23.1) The 10 Complaint states the Court has subject matter jurisdiction based on diversity. (Id. at 1, 2– 11 3.) 12 The Complaint alleges Plaintiff Daroodi “is a citizen of the United States … 13 currently residing in Tehran, Iran [and] travels to the United States at least annually.” (Id. 14 at 3.) Plaintiff Afsharpour is alleged to be “a resident of the city of Los Angeles, 15 California.” (Id.) Plaintiff Shahrokhi is alleged to be “a resident of both the city of Los 16 Angeles, California, and Portland, Oregon.” (Id. at 3–4.) Plaintiff Shahrokhi is also 17 alleged to be “acting as a natural parent and legal guardian to represent the interests of his 18 son, a minor, referred to as B.E.S., who has been named as one of the beneficiaries of the 19 TRUST.” (Id. at 4.) Defendant Kitaen is alleged to be a resident of San Diego, California. 20 (Id. at 4.) 21 B. Motion to Dismiss 22 On September 8, 2023, Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss based on lack of 23 subject matter jurisdiction. (Doc. 3.) Defendants argue diversity jurisdiction is lacking 24 because Defendant Kitaen and Plaintiff Afsharpour are both alleged to reside in California. 25 (Id. at 2–3.) 26 27 28 1 C. First Amended Complaint 2 On September 12, 2024, Plaintiffs Daroodi and Shahrokhi filed the FAC pursuant to 3 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(1). (Doc. 6.) The FAC, like the initial Complaint, 4 asserts only state law claims, although the FAC adds one additional state law claim. (Id. 5 at 11–28.) 6 Some of the allegations regarding where the Plaintiffs reside have changed in the 7 verified FAC. (Id. a 3–4.) Plaintiff Afsharpour, previously alleged to be a resident of Los 8 Angeles, California in the initial Complaint (Doc. 1 at 3), is no longer named as a Plaintiff 9 in the FAC. (See Doc. 6 at 3 (listing only Daroodi and Shahrokhi as Plaintiffs).)2 The 10 allegations as to Plaintiff Shahrokhi have changed slightly. The FAC no longer alleges 11 Plaintiff Shahrokhi is a resident of both Los Angeles, California and Portland, Oregon. The 12 FAC alleges only that Plaintiff Shahrokhi “is acting as a natural father (parent) to represent 13 the interests of his son, a minor, referred to as B.E.S., who resides in Oregon and has been 14 named as one of the beneficiaries of the TRUST and a[n] heir to Mona Shahrokhi.” (Id. at 15 3.) Additionally, the Court notes that the address listed for Plaintiff Shahrokhi on the FAC 16 and Motion to File Electronically is in Las Vegas, Nevada. 17 Like the initial Complaint, the FAC continues to allege Plaintiff Daroodi “is a citizen 18 of the United States … currently residing in Tehran, Iran [and] travels to the United States 19 at least annually.” (Id. at 3.) As in the initial Complaint, Defendant Kitaen is still alleged 20 to be a resident of San Diego, California. (Id.) 21 II. DISCUSSION 22 A. Motion to Dismiss 23 Plaintiffs’ FAC was timely filed as a matter of right under Federal Rule of Civil 24 Procedure 15(a)(1). Rule 15(a)(1) addresses amending as a matter of course and states 25 that: “[a] party may amend its pleading once as a matter of course no later than: 21 days 26 27 2 Plaintiffs indicate that “[f]or the sake of maintaining diversity jurisdiction, the plaintiffs 28 1 after serving it, or (B) if the pleading is one to which a responsive pleading is required, 21 2 days after service of a responsive pleading or 21 days after service of a motion under Rule 3 12(b), (e), or (f), whichever is earlier.” 4 Plaintiffs’ FAC, filed on September 12, 2023, was filed within 21 days of 5 Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. Because the timely filed FAC is now the operative 6 pleading, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss the initial Complaint is moot.3 Accordingly, 7 Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 3) is DENIED as moot. 8 B. Order to Show Cause 9 1. Subject Matter Jurisdiction 10 “Federal district courts are courts of limited jurisdiction that ‘may not grant relief 11 absent a constitutional or valid statutory grant of jurisdiction’ and are ‘presumed to lack 12 jurisdiction in a particular case unless the contrary affirmatively appears.’” Cooper v. 13 Tokyo Elec. Power Co., 990 F. Supp. 2d 1035, 1038 (S.D. Cal. 2013) (quoting A-Z Int’l v. 14 Phillips, 323 F.3d 1141, 1145 (9th Cir. 2003)). Even when no party raises the issue, federal 15 courts are “obliged to inquire sua sponte whenever a doubt arises as to the existence of 16 federal jurisdiction.” Mt. Healthy City Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ. v. Doyle, 429 U.S. 274, 278 17 (1977) (citations omitted); see also Henderson ex rel. Henderson v. Shinseki, 562 U.S. 428, 18 434 (2011) (“[F]ederal courts have an independent obligation to ensure that they do not 19 exceed the scope of their jurisdiction, and therefore they must raise and decide 20 jurisdictional questions that the parties either overlook or elect not to press.”). 21 The party or parties asserting jurisdiction, here Plaintiffs, bear the burden of 22 establishing that subject matter jurisdiction exists. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of 23 Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). “This burden, at the pleading stage, must be met by 24 25 26 3 Although the Court finds Plaintiffs’ FAC was timely filed, Defendants are not required to 27 file a response to the FAC until the Court discharges the Order to Show Cause, discussed below. The Court will set a deadline for Defendants to respond to the FAC if the Court 28 1 pleading sufficient allegations to show a proper basis for the court to assert subject matter 2 jurisdiction over an action.” Duell Fam. Tr. v. Ford, No. 24-CV-316 JLS (VET), 2024 WL 3 1318878, at *3 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 27, 2024) (citing Wilkerson v. Butler, 229 F.R.D. 166, 169 4 (E.D. Cal. 2005)). 5 Here, Plaintiffs assert diversity jurisdiction. (Doc. 6 at 2.) Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 6 §1332(a), federal courts have diversity jurisdiction when there is diversity of citizenship 7 among the parties and when the amount-in-controversy exceeds $75,000.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 ORKIDEH DAROODI, et al., Case No.: 23-cv-1490-RBM-JLB
11 Plaintiffs, ORDER: 12 v. (1) DENYING MOTION TO 13 BARRY D. KITAEN, et al., DISMISS AS MOOT 14 Defendants. (2) DENYING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE 15 ELECTRONICALLY 16 (3) ORDERING PLAINTIFFS TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THIS 17 CASE SHOULD NOT BE 18 DISMISSED FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER 19 JURISDICTION 20 [Docs. 3, 5] 21 22 23 Pending before the Court is a Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendants Barry David 24 Kitaen, as an individual, and Barry David Kitaen, as Trustee of the Mona Shahrokhi 2000 25 Trust (“Defendants”). (Doc. 3.) Defendants move to dismiss the initial Complaint filed 26 by pro se Plaintiffs Orkideh Daroodi, Parvin Afsharpour, and Ali Shahrokhi (Doc. 1). 27 Plaintiff Shahrokhi has also filed a Motion for Pro Se Plaintiff to File Electronically 28 (“Motion to File Electronically”). (Doc. 5.) 1 For the reasons set forth below, the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is DENIED as 2 moot based on Plaintiffs’ timely filing of a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) (Doc. 6). 3 However, Plaintiffs are ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE why this case should not be 4 dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Court also DENIES without 5 prejudice Shahrokhi’s Motion for Leave to File Electronically. 6 I. BACKGROUND 7 A. Initial Complaint 8 On August 14, 2023, Plaintiffs Daroodi, Afsharpour, and Shahrokhi filed a verified 9 Complaint asserting seven state law claims against Defendants. (Doc. 1 at 11–23.1) The 10 Complaint states the Court has subject matter jurisdiction based on diversity. (Id. at 1, 2– 11 3.) 12 The Complaint alleges Plaintiff Daroodi “is a citizen of the United States … 13 currently residing in Tehran, Iran [and] travels to the United States at least annually.” (Id. 14 at 3.) Plaintiff Afsharpour is alleged to be “a resident of the city of Los Angeles, 15 California.” (Id.) Plaintiff Shahrokhi is alleged to be “a resident of both the city of Los 16 Angeles, California, and Portland, Oregon.” (Id. at 3–4.) Plaintiff Shahrokhi is also 17 alleged to be “acting as a natural parent and legal guardian to represent the interests of his 18 son, a minor, referred to as B.E.S., who has been named as one of the beneficiaries of the 19 TRUST.” (Id. at 4.) Defendant Kitaen is alleged to be a resident of San Diego, California. 20 (Id. at 4.) 21 B. Motion to Dismiss 22 On September 8, 2023, Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss based on lack of 23 subject matter jurisdiction. (Doc. 3.) Defendants argue diversity jurisdiction is lacking 24 because Defendant Kitaen and Plaintiff Afsharpour are both alleged to reside in California. 25 (Id. at 2–3.) 26 27 28 1 C. First Amended Complaint 2 On September 12, 2024, Plaintiffs Daroodi and Shahrokhi filed the FAC pursuant to 3 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(1). (Doc. 6.) The FAC, like the initial Complaint, 4 asserts only state law claims, although the FAC adds one additional state law claim. (Id. 5 at 11–28.) 6 Some of the allegations regarding where the Plaintiffs reside have changed in the 7 verified FAC. (Id. a 3–4.) Plaintiff Afsharpour, previously alleged to be a resident of Los 8 Angeles, California in the initial Complaint (Doc. 1 at 3), is no longer named as a Plaintiff 9 in the FAC. (See Doc. 6 at 3 (listing only Daroodi and Shahrokhi as Plaintiffs).)2 The 10 allegations as to Plaintiff Shahrokhi have changed slightly. The FAC no longer alleges 11 Plaintiff Shahrokhi is a resident of both Los Angeles, California and Portland, Oregon. The 12 FAC alleges only that Plaintiff Shahrokhi “is acting as a natural father (parent) to represent 13 the interests of his son, a minor, referred to as B.E.S., who resides in Oregon and has been 14 named as one of the beneficiaries of the TRUST and a[n] heir to Mona Shahrokhi.” (Id. at 15 3.) Additionally, the Court notes that the address listed for Plaintiff Shahrokhi on the FAC 16 and Motion to File Electronically is in Las Vegas, Nevada. 17 Like the initial Complaint, the FAC continues to allege Plaintiff Daroodi “is a citizen 18 of the United States … currently residing in Tehran, Iran [and] travels to the United States 19 at least annually.” (Id. at 3.) As in the initial Complaint, Defendant Kitaen is still alleged 20 to be a resident of San Diego, California. (Id.) 21 II. DISCUSSION 22 A. Motion to Dismiss 23 Plaintiffs’ FAC was timely filed as a matter of right under Federal Rule of Civil 24 Procedure 15(a)(1). Rule 15(a)(1) addresses amending as a matter of course and states 25 that: “[a] party may amend its pleading once as a matter of course no later than: 21 days 26 27 2 Plaintiffs indicate that “[f]or the sake of maintaining diversity jurisdiction, the plaintiffs 28 1 after serving it, or (B) if the pleading is one to which a responsive pleading is required, 21 2 days after service of a responsive pleading or 21 days after service of a motion under Rule 3 12(b), (e), or (f), whichever is earlier.” 4 Plaintiffs’ FAC, filed on September 12, 2023, was filed within 21 days of 5 Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. Because the timely filed FAC is now the operative 6 pleading, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss the initial Complaint is moot.3 Accordingly, 7 Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 3) is DENIED as moot. 8 B. Order to Show Cause 9 1. Subject Matter Jurisdiction 10 “Federal district courts are courts of limited jurisdiction that ‘may not grant relief 11 absent a constitutional or valid statutory grant of jurisdiction’ and are ‘presumed to lack 12 jurisdiction in a particular case unless the contrary affirmatively appears.’” Cooper v. 13 Tokyo Elec. Power Co., 990 F. Supp. 2d 1035, 1038 (S.D. Cal. 2013) (quoting A-Z Int’l v. 14 Phillips, 323 F.3d 1141, 1145 (9th Cir. 2003)). Even when no party raises the issue, federal 15 courts are “obliged to inquire sua sponte whenever a doubt arises as to the existence of 16 federal jurisdiction.” Mt. Healthy City Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ. v. Doyle, 429 U.S. 274, 278 17 (1977) (citations omitted); see also Henderson ex rel. Henderson v. Shinseki, 562 U.S. 428, 18 434 (2011) (“[F]ederal courts have an independent obligation to ensure that they do not 19 exceed the scope of their jurisdiction, and therefore they must raise and decide 20 jurisdictional questions that the parties either overlook or elect not to press.”). 21 The party or parties asserting jurisdiction, here Plaintiffs, bear the burden of 22 establishing that subject matter jurisdiction exists. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of 23 Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). “This burden, at the pleading stage, must be met by 24 25 26 3 Although the Court finds Plaintiffs’ FAC was timely filed, Defendants are not required to 27 file a response to the FAC until the Court discharges the Order to Show Cause, discussed below. The Court will set a deadline for Defendants to respond to the FAC if the Court 28 1 pleading sufficient allegations to show a proper basis for the court to assert subject matter 2 jurisdiction over an action.” Duell Fam. Tr. v. Ford, No. 24-CV-316 JLS (VET), 2024 WL 3 1318878, at *3 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 27, 2024) (citing Wilkerson v. Butler, 229 F.R.D. 166, 169 4 (E.D. Cal. 2005)). 5 Here, Plaintiffs assert diversity jurisdiction. (Doc. 6 at 2.) Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 6 §1332(a), federal courts have diversity jurisdiction when there is diversity of citizenship 7 among the parties and when the amount-in-controversy exceeds $75,000. 28 U.S.C. § 8 1332(a); see, e.g., Caterpillar Inc. v. Lewis, 519 U.S. 61, 67–68 (1996). To establish 9 diversity jurisdiction, the citizenship of each plaintiff must be diverse from the citizenship 10 of each defendant. Caterpillar Inc., 519 U.S. at 68. “[J]urisdiction of the court depends 11 upon the state of things at the time … the action [is] brought.” Grupo Dataflux v. Atlas 12 Global Grp., L.P., 541 U.S. 567, 570–71 (2004) (The time-of-filing rule “measures all 13 challenges to subject-matter jurisdiction premised upon diversity of citizenship against the 14 facts that existed at the time of filing—whether the challenge be brought shortly after filing, 15 after the trial, or even for the first time on appeal.”) (citations omitted). 16 Citizenship for a natural person, for purposes of § 1332, is “determined by [their] 17 state of domicile.” Kanter v. Warner-Lambert Co., 265 F.3d 853, 857 (9th Cir. 2001). “A 18 person’s domicile is [their] permanent home, where [they] reside[] with the intention to 19 remain or to which [they] intend[] to return.” Id. (citing Lew v. Moss, 797 F.2d 747, 749 20 (9th Cir. 1986)). “Residence and citizenship are not the same thing.” Mantin v. Broadcast 21 Music, Inc., 244 F.2d 204, 206 (9th Cir. 1957). However, “[a]t a minimum, a person’s 22 residence constitutes some evidence of domicile.” Adams v. W. Marine Prods., Inc., 958 23 F.3d 1216, 1222 (9th Cir. 2020) (citing Mondragon v. Capital One Auto Fin., 736 F.3d 24 880, 886 (9th Cir. 2013)). “A person generally assumes the domicile of [their] parents, and 25 … may have only one domicile at a time.” Gaudin v. Remis, 379 F.3d 631, 636 (9th Cir. 26 2004) (citing Lew, 797 F.2d at 750–51). 27 When a party “is ‘a United States citizen, but has no domicile in any State,’ [they 28 are] ‘stateless for purposes of § 1332(a)(3).’” La. Mun. Police Emps. Ret. Sys. v. Wynn, 1 829 F.3d 1048, 1056 (9th Cir. 2016) (quoting Newman-Green Inc. v. Alfonzo-Larrain, 490 2 U.S. 826, 828 (1989)). This “stateless status” destroys diversity. Id.; see also Cresswell v. 3 Sullivan & Cromwell, 992 F.2d 60, 68 (2nd Cir. 1990) (“United States citizens who are 4 domiciled abroad are neither citizens of any state of the United States nor citizens or 5 subjects of a foreign state, and § 1332(a) does not provide that the courts have jurisdiction 6 over a suit to which such persons are parties.”). 7 2. Analysis 8 Based on the allegations of the verified FAC (Doc. 6), the Court has doubt “as to the 9 existence of federal jurisdiction.” Mt. Healthy City Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ., 429 U.S. at 278 10 (explaining that federal courts are “obliged to inquire sua sponte whenever a doubt arises 11 as to the existence of federal jurisdiction.”). Plaintiff Daroodi has stated that at the time he 12 filed two verified complaints (Doc. 1 at 3; Doc. 6 at 3), he was a United States citizen living 13 abroad. La. Mun. Police Emps. Ret. Sys., 829 F.3d at 1056 (explaining this “stateless 14 status” destroys diversity) (citations and quotations omitted). 15 Additionally, the citizenship of the minor and Shahrokhi, as well as whose 16 citizenship Plaintiffs are attempting to rely on is unclear from the allegations of the FAC. 17 The FAC identifies Shahrokhi as the Plaintiff but does not allege his citizenship for 18 purposes of diversity jurisdiction (Doc. 6 at 3) as Plaintiffs did in the initial Complaint 19 (Doc. 1 at 3–4). The initial Complaint alleged Shahrokhi “is a resident of both the city of 20 Los Angeles, California, and Portland, Oregon.” (Doc. 1 at 3–4.) Whereas the FAC alleges 21 Shahrokhi is representing his minor son, B.E.S., who “resides in Oregon.” (Doc. 6 at 3.) 22 Given these two issues, the Court doubts the existence of federal jurisdiction based on 23 diversity. 24 Accordingly, the Court ORDERS Plaintiffs TO SHOW CAUSE on or before 25 August 23, 2024 why this case should not be dismissed without prejudice for lack of 26 subject matter jurisdiction. Plaintiffs’ response may not exceed ten (10) pages. If Plaintiff 27 elects to voluntarily dismiss this case, no response is required. If no response is filed by 28 August 23, 2024, this action will be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule 1 of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3). Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3) (“If the court determines at any time 2 that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action.”). 3 Defendants may respond to Plaintiffs’ response to the OSC by August 30, 2024. It 4 may not exceed ten (10) pages. 5 C. Leave to File Electronically 6 Plaintiff Shahrokhi4 has filed a Motion for Pro Se Plaintiff to File Electronically. 7 (Doc. 5.) “Unless otherwise authorized by the court, all documents submitted for filing to 8 the Clerk’s Office by parties appearing without an attorney must be in legible, paper form.” 9 See Electronic Case Filing Admin. Policies and Procedures Manual, § 2(b) (“ECF 10 Manual”). “A pro se party seeking leave to electronically file documents must file a motion 11 and demonstrate the means to do so properly by stating their equipment and software 12 capabilities in addition to agreeing to follow all rules and policies in the CM/ECF 13 Administrative Policies and Procedures Manual.” Id. The ECF Manual refers to the 14 Court’s official website for CM/ECF technical specifications, id. at § 1(i), which include a 15 “[c]omputer running Windows or Macintosh;” “[s]oftware to convert documents from a 16 word processor format to portable document format (PDF),” such as “Adobe Acrobat 7.0 17 and higher;” “[i]nternet access supporting a transfer rate of 56kb or higher;” a compatible 18 browser, such as “Firefox 15, Internet Explorer 9, and Safari 5.1/6 or later version;” a 19 “[s]canner to image non-computerized documents 400 pixels per inch (ppi);” and a PACER 20 account. See U.S. District Court, S.D. Cal., CM/ECF: General Info, 21 https://www.casd.uscourts.gov/cmecf.aspx#undefined1 (last visited July 30, 2024). 22 Plaintiff’s Motion “asserts his capability and willingness to undergo the necessary 23 CM/ECF tutorial” but does not indicate his willingness to follow the rules and policies in 24 the ECF Manual. Plaintiff’s Motion also does not state whether he has: (1) a computer 25 running Windows or Macintosh; (2) software to convert documents from a word processor 26 27 4 The Motion lists Plaintiffs Daroodi and Shahrokhi on the caption page, but it is signed 28 1 || format to PDF such as Adobe Acrobat 7.0 and higher; (3) internet access supporting a 2 transfer rate of 56kb or higher; (4) a compatible browser such as Firefox 15, Internet 3 ||Explorer 9, or Safari 5.1/6 or a later version; and (5) a scanner that can image non- 4 ||computerized documents at 400 ppi. See ECF Manual § 1(1); U.S. District Court, S.D. Cal., 5 ||}CM/ECF: General Info, https://www.casd.uscourts.gov/cmecf.aspx#undefined1 (last 6 || visited July 30, 2024). 7 Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motion (Doc. 5) is DENIED without prejudice. Plaintiff 8 ||may file an amended motion that includes a declaration addressing the deficiencies 9 || identified above and affirming that Plaintiff can and will follow all rules and policies in the 10 |} ECF Manual. 11 Ht. CONCLUSION 12 Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 3) is DENIED as moot. Plaintiff's Motion to 13 || File Electronically (Doc. 5) is DENIED without prejudice. 14 Plaintiffs are ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE on or before August 23, 2024 why 15 case should not be dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 16 || Plaintiffs’ response may not exceed ten (10) pages. If no response is filed by August 23, 17 ||2024, this action will be dismissed without prejudice. Defendants may respond to 18 || Plaintiffs’ response to the OSC by August 30, 2024. It may not exceed ten (10) pages. 19 Defendants are not required to file a response to the FAC until the Court discharges 20 Order to Show Cause. The Court will set a deadline for Defendants to respond to the 21 if the Court concludes subject matter jurisdiction is not lacking. 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. 23 Dated: August 5, 2024 Fe Le ; ? L □ 24 HON. RUTH BERMUDEZ MONTENEGRO 25 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 26 27 28