Wright v. Shell Gas Station

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: June 11, 2023
• Docket: 3:22-cv-03594
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 San Francisco Division 11 DONALD LEON WRIGHT, Case No. 22-cv-03594-LB

12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION TO JOIN 13 v. MILA CABASEN

14 EQUILON ENTERPRISES LLC DBA Re: ECF No. 130 SHELL OIL PRODUCTS US, 15 Defendant. 16 17 The plaintiff, who is representing himself, moves to join Mila Cabasen as a defendant in this 18 diversity case.1 The defendant filed a statement of non-opposition, noting that it has no knowledge 19 of an individual by that name.2 The plaintiff filed a related case in state court, where he named Ms. 20 Cabasen as a defendant and described her as a “key principal” at the Shell gas station where the 21 plaintiff was allegedly shot. In his complaint in the state case, the plaintiff provided the San 22 23 24 25 26 27 1 Mot. – ECF No. 130. Citations refer to material in the Electronic Case File (ECF); pinpoint citations are to the ECF-generated page numbers at the top of documents. 1 Leandro, California address of the gas station as Ms. Cabasen’s address.3 The plaintiff is a citizen 2 of California.4 3 The court can decide the motion without oral argument. N.D. Cal. Civ. L.R. 7-1(b). The court 4 denies the request to join Ms. Cabasen because the plaintiff has not established Ms. Cabasen’s 5 citizenship and it is thus unclear whether joining Ms. Cabasen would destroy diversity jurisdiction. 6 In a previous order, the court explained the concept of subject-matter jurisdiction: 7 Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. E.g., Owen Equip. & Erection Co. v. Kroger, 437 U.S. 365, 374 (1978). “A federal court is presumed to lack 8 jurisdiction in a particular case unless the contrary affirmatively appears.” Stock West, Inc. v. Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation, 873 F.2d 1221, 1225 9 (9th Cir. 1989) (citation omitted). The plaintiff bears the burden of proving that his 10 case is within federal jurisdiction. See, e.g., In re Ford Motor Co./Citibank (S.D.), N.A., 264 F.3d 952, 957 (9th Cir. 2001) (citing McNutt v. Gen. Motors Acceptance 11 Corp., 298 U.S. 178, 189 (1936)). 12 There are two ways to establish the court’s jurisdiction: federal-question jurisdiction and diversity jurisdiction. Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 13 392 (1987). There is federal question jurisdiction if the case “aris[es] under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. For diversity 14 jurisdiction, the opposing parties must be citizens of different states, and the 15 amount in controversy must exceed $75,000. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). The Supreme Court has interpreted § 1332(a) to require “complete diversity of citizenship” — 16 that is, each plaintiff must be a citizen of a different state than each defendant. Caterpillar, 519 U.S. at 68.5 17 18 Here, the court does not have federal-question jurisdiction because the claims are state-law 19 claims. Also, because the plaintiff is a citizen of California, the court would lack diversity 20 jurisdiction if Ms. Cabasen is a citizen of California. The court previously dismissed several of the 21 plaintiff’s complaints on the ground that the Shell gas station employees, and the Shell franchise 22 itself, were California citizens.6 Ms. Cabasen is likely a California citizen too, but in any case, the 23 plaintiff has not carried his burden of showing that she is not. The court thus denies the motion. 24 25 3 Compl. at 7, Wright v. Cabasen, No. 22CV024160 (Super. Ct. Alameda Cnty. Dec. 19, 2022). The court can judicially notice public-record documents. Lee v. City of Los Angeles, 250 F.3d 668, 689–90 26 (9th Cir. 2001). 4 Order – ECF No. 10 at 2 & n.5; Order – ECF No. 19 at 3 & n.6. 27 5 Order – ECF No. 19 at 2. ] This resolves ECF No. 130. 2 IT IS SO ORDERED. 3 Dated: June 11, 2023 □□ EC 4 OO eee LAUREL BEELER 5 United States Magistrate Judge 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 14

© Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28