Wexler v. Starbucks Coffee Corporation

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: July 2, 2025
• Docket: 4:25-cv-00349
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 6 MARSHALL WEXLER, Case No. 4:25-cv-00349-YGR

7 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: SUBJECT v. MATTER JURISDICTION 8

9 STARBUCKS CORPORATION AND JOHN DOE TRUCKING COMPANY, 10 Defendant.

TO PLAINTIFF MARSHALL WEXLER: 12 13 You are HEREBY ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE in writing why this case should not be remanded for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. In his complaint, plaintiff, formerly a resident of California, 14 now identifies himself as an “an individual residing in the country of Brazil.” (Dkt. No. 1, 15 Complaint for Compensatory Damages (“Comp.”) ¶ 6.) 16 A U.S. citizen who is domiciled outside the United States is neither a citizen of a state under 17 § 1332(a)(1) nor a citizen of a foreign state under § 1332(a)(2). Newman-Green, Inc. v. Alfonzo- 18 Larrain, 490 U.S. 826, 828 (1989). In other words, presence of a U.S. citizen domiciled abroad 19 defeats diversity jurisdiction. Brady v. Brown, 51 F.3d 810, 815 (9th Cir. 1995); see, e.g., Turan 20 Petroleum, Inc. v. Lentin, 482 F.Supp. 2d 1170, 1171-72 (C.D. Cal. 2007) (finding no diversity of 21 citizenship under § 1332(a) when a U.S. citizen is domiciled abroad); Jones v. Dalrymple, 679 22 Fed.App’x. 668, 669 (10th Cir. 2017) (“A United States citizen domiciled in a foreign country is 23 not a ‘citizen[ ] or subject[ ] of a foreign state,’ but is stateless and unable to assert jurisdiction 24 under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(2) or § 1332(a)(1).” (citation omitted)); De Wit v. KLM Royal Dutch 25 Airlines, N.V., 570 F.Supp. 613, 617 (S.D.N.Y. 1983) (“[I]t is well settled that an American citizen 26 living abroad cannot invoke federal court jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) because he or she 27 1 Because subject matter jurisdiction “involves a court's power to hear a case, [it] can never 2 be forfeited or waived.” United States v. Cotton, 535 U.S. 625, 630 (2002). Federal courts are 3 obligated to decide issues of subject matter jurisdiction sua sponte at any time it appears that 4 subject matter jurisdiction may be lacking. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3); Augustine v. United States, 5 704 F.2d 1074, 1077 (9th Cir. 1983) (“[T]he court is under a continuing duty to dismiss an action 6 || whenever it appears that the court lacks jurisdiction.”). “If the court determines at any time that it 7 || lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action.” Fed R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). 8 Accordingly, plaintiff must explain why this case should not be remanded for lack of 9 subject matter jurisdiction, including whether he is a U.S. citizen domiciled abroad. Within 10 || twenty-one (21) days of the date of this Order, plaintiff may file a written brief, not to exceed five 11 (5) pages, addressing the question of whether the Court has diversity jurisdiction over this action. 12 || Plaintiffs failure to timely respond to the order to show cause will be interpreted by the Court as a 13 concession of lack of subject matter jurisdiction resulting in dismissal. Defendant will have 14 || fourteen (14) days to respond with no more than five (5) pages and plaintiff will have seven (7) 3 15 days to reply in no more than five (5) pages. 16

17 IT Is SO ORDERED. |] ated: July 2, 2025

20 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28