Skistimas v. Hotworx Franchising LLC

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: March 8, 2024
• Docket: 3:23-cv-05974
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4

5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 9 10 GREG SKISTIMAS et al., CASE NO. 3:23-cv-05974-DGE 11 Plaintiffs, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 12 v. 13 HOTWORX FRANCHISING LLC et al., 14 Defendants. 15

16 This matter comes before the Court on its own review of the record. Plaintiffs allege 17 diversity jurisdiction on the basis that “all Plaintiffs are residents of Washington and none of the 18 Defendants is a resident of Washington.” (Dkt. No. 1 at 4.) However, the complaint does not 19 identify each party’s state of citizenship. (See id. at 2–4.) As the Ninth Circuit explains: 20 [T]he diversity jurisdiction statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1332, speaks of citizenship, not of 21 residency. To be a citizen of a state, a natural person must first be a citizen of the United States. The natural person’s state citizenship is then determined by her 22 state of domicile, not her state of residence. A person’s domicile is her permanent home, where she resides with the intention to remain or to which she intends to 23 return. A person residing in a given state is not necessarily domiciled there, and thus is not necessarily a citizen of that state. 24 1 Kanter v. Warner-Lambert Co., 265 F.3d 853, 857 (9th Cir. 2001) (internal citations 2 omitted); see also E. Bay L. v. Ford Motor Co., 2015 WL 13926922, at *1 (9th Cir. May 15, 3 2015) (diverse residency is not sufficient to establish diversity jurisdiction). 4 “The diversity jurisdiction statute, as construed for nearly 200 years, requires that to

5 bring a diversity case in federal court . . . each plaintiff must be diverse from each defendant.” 6 Lee v. American Nat’l Ins. Co., 260 F.3d 997, 1004 (9th Cir. 2001). Failure to meet the 7 requirements of the diversity statute for each defendant destroys “‘complete diversity,’ rendering 8 the entire case beyond the federal court’s power to decide.” Id. at 1005. “Absent unusual 9 circumstances, a party seeking to invoke diversity jurisdiction should be able to allege 10 affirmatively the actual citizenship of the relevant parties.” Kanter, 265 F.3d at 857. 11 Accordingly, Plaintiffs are ordered to show cause, no later than March 15, 2024, why this 12 case should not be dismissed for lack of federal subject matter jurisdiction. 13 Dated this 8th day of March 2024. 14 A 15 David G. Estudillo 16 United States District Judge

17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24