Saira Sanchez v. G2 Secure Staff, LLC

C.D. California

Saira Sanchez v. G2 Secure Staff, LLC

DecidedFebruary 18, 2025

Docket2:25-cv-00750

StatusUnknown

This text of Saira Sanchez v. G2 Secure Staff, LLC (Saira Sanchez v. G2 Secure Staff, LLC) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, C.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Saira Sanchez v. G2 Secure Staff, LLC, (C.D. Cal. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Case No. CV 25-0750 FMO (PVCx) Date February 18, 2025 Title Saira Sanchez v. G2 Secure Staff, LLC

Present: The Honorable Fernando M. Olguin, United States District Judge Vanessa Figueroa None None Deputy Clerk Court Reporter / Recorder Tape No. Attorney Present for Plaintiff(s): Attorney Present for Defendant(s): None Present None Present Proceedings: (In Chambers) Order to Show Cause Re: Jurisdiction On January 28, 2025, plaintiff Saira Sanchez filed this action against G2 Secure Staff, LLC (“defendant”) asserting state law claims. (See Dkt. 1, Complaint). Federal subject matter jurisdiction is based on diversity jurisdiction. (See id. at J 5). However, plaintiff has failed to put forth sufficient allegations for the court to determine whether it has diversity jurisdiction. More specifically, the citizenship of plaintiff and defendant is unclear. Accordingly, IT |S ORDERED THAT plaintiff shall file a First Amended Complaint setting forth the citizenship of each party no later than February 25, 2025. Failure to file a First Amended Complaint by the deadline set forth above shall be deemed as consent to the dismissal of the action without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction and/or failure to comply with a court order. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 629-30, 82 S.Ct. 1386, 1388 (1962); Edwards v. Marin Park, Inc., 356 F.3d 1058, 1065 (9th Cir. 2004) (“The failure of the plaintiff eventually to respond to the court’s ultimatum — either by amending the complaint or by indicating to the court that it will not do so — is properly met with the sanction of a Rule 41(b) dismissal.”); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-63 (9th Cir. 1992) (affirming dismissal for failure to file amended complaint as ordered by district court).

00 : 00 Initials of Preparer vdr

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Case No. CV 25-0750 FMO (PVCx) Date February 18, 2025 Title Saira Sanchez v. G2 Secure Staff, LLC

Present: The Honorable Fernando M. Olguin, United States District Judge Vanessa Figueroa None None Deputy Clerk Court Reporter / Recorder Tape No. Attorney Present for Plaintiff(s): Attorney Present for Defendant(s): None Present None Present Proceedings: (In Chambers) Order to Show Cause Re: Jurisdiction On January 28, 2025, plaintiff Saira Sanchez filed this action against G2 Secure Staff, LLC (“defendant”) asserting state law claims. (See Dkt. 1, Complaint). Federal subject matter jurisdiction is based on diversity jurisdiction. (See id. at J 5). However, plaintiff has failed to put forth sufficient allegations for the court to determine whether it has diversity jurisdiction. More specifically, the citizenship of plaintiff and defendant is unclear. Accordingly, IT |S ORDERED THAT plaintiff shall file a First Amended Complaint setting forth the citizenship of each party no later than February 25, 2025. Failure to file a First Amended Complaint by the deadline set forth above shall be deemed as consent to the dismissal of the action without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction and/or failure to comply with a court order. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 629-30, 82 S.Ct. 1386, 1388 (1962); Edwards v. Marin Park, Inc., 356 F.3d 1058, 1065 (9th Cir. 2004) (“The failure of the plaintiff eventually to respond to the court’s ultimatum — either by amending the complaint or by indicating to the court that it will not do so — is properly met with the sanction of a Rule 41(b) dismissal.”); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-63 (9th Cir. 1992) (affirming dismissal for failure to file amended complaint as ordered by district court).

00 : 00 Initials of Preparer vdr

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Saira Sanchez v. G2 Secure Staff, LLC, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/saira-sanchez-v-g2-secure-staff-llc-cacd-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack