Silver v. Tobias & Associates Inc.

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: March 15, 2021
• Docket: 4:20-cv-07382
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 NEIL SILVER, Case No. 20-cv-07382-JSW

8 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 9 v. REGARDING CAFA JURISDICTION AND VACATING HEARING ON 10 TOBIAS & ASSOCIATES INC., MOTION TO DISMISS FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT Defendant. 11 Re: Dkt. Nos. 27, 32

13 On January 22, 2021, Plaintiff filed his First Amended Complaint (“FAC”). (Dkt. No. 27.) 14 In his FAC, Plaintiff asserts that this Court has federal question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 15 section 1331. (Id. ¶ 2.) Defendant challenges whether federal question jurisdiction exists, and the 16 Court will address this issue when it resolves Defendant’s pending motion to dismiss the FAC. 17 (See Dkt. No. 32.) Of relevance here is Plaintiff’s assertion that this Court also has jurisdiction 18 pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (“CAFA”), 28 U.S.C. section 1332(d)(2). (FAC 19 ¶ 2). 20 A party seeking to invoke CAFA jurisdiction must establish, among other things, that 21 “minimal diversity” exists. Bush v. Cheaptickets, Inc., 425 F.3d 683, 684 (9th Cir. 2005). One 22 may demonstrate minimal diversity by showing that “any class member is a citizen of a state 23 different from any defendant.” Serrano v. 180 Connect, Inc., 478 F.3d 1018, 1021 (9th Cir. 2007); 24 see also 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2)(A). While CAFA does not require “complete diversity,” see 25 Serrano, 478 F.3d at 1021, this does not discharge one’s burden to “allege affirmatively the 26 citizenship of the relevant parties.” Kanter v. Warner-Lambert Co., 265 F.3d 853, 857 (9th Cir. 27 2001). A “natural person’s state citizenship is . . . determined by [his or] her state of domicile, not 1 [his or] her state of residence.” Jd.; see also Mondragon v. Capital One Auto Finance, 736 F.3d 2 880, 884 (9th Cir. 2013) (noting that just because a person “may have a residential address in 3 California does not mean that person is a citizen of California”). Accordingly, allegations of a 4 || person’s state of residence, alone, are insufficient to establish his or her citizenship. See, e.g., 5 || Seven Resorts, Inc. v. Cantlen, 57 F.3d 771, 774 (9th Cir. 1995) (concluding that a plaintiff's 6 || allegation that he was a “resident of Oregon” was insufficient to establish diversity jurisdiction); 7 Woodruff v. Premium Cap. Funding, LLC, No. C 09-3300 VRW, 2009 WL 10694370, at *3 (N.D. 8 Cal. Oct. 21, 2009) (“A statement indicating a party’s ‘residency’ does not sufficiently allege her 9 || citizenship.””). 10 Here, Plaintiff alleges that minimal diversity exists because he is a “natural person residing 11 in Marin County, California” and Defendant is a “Florida corporation.” (FAC 2, 4.) Absent 12 more, Plaintiff’s current assertion of his state of residence is insufficient to establish his E 13 citizenship. See Cantlen, 57 F.3d at 774; Woodruff, 2009 WL 10694370, at *3. Because 14 || Plaintiffs current allegations are inadequate, the Court cannot determine whether there is minimal 3 15 diversity and, subsequently, whether CAFA jurisdiction exists. 16 Accordingly, Plaintiff is HEREBY ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE in writing by no later i 17 || than March 22, 2021, that the minimal diversity of citizenship necessary for CAFA jurisdiction Z 18 exists. 19 It is FURTHER ORDERED that, the Court has considered the parties’ papers regarding 20 Defendant’s motion to dismiss the FAC, relevant legal authority, and the record in this case, and it 21 finds the matter suitable for disposition without oral argument. See N.D. Civ. L.R. 7-1(b). 22 || Accordingly, the Court HEREBY VACATES the hearing set for March 26, 2021. A written 23 || ruling on the motion shall issue in due course. 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7) 25 || Dated: March 15, 2021 ( / L/ | nt 26 Ht / EFFREY S$. WHITE 27 / /nitgA States DAtrict Judge 28 /