Yeqing Xia v. California Investment Immigration Fund, LLC

• Court: District Court, C.D. California
• Decided: November 15, 2023
• Docket: 2:22-cv-09034
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JS-6 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES -- GENERAL Case No. CV 22-9034-JFW(RAOx) Date: November 15, 2023 Title: Yeqing Xia, et al. -v- California Investment Immigration Fund, LLC, et al.

PRESENT: HONORABLE JOHN F. WALTER, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Shannon Reilly None Present Courtroom Deputy Court Reporter ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR PLAINTIFFS: ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR DEFENDANTS: None None PROCEEDINGS (IN CHAMBERS): ORDER DISMISSING ACTION FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURSIDICTION On December 13, 2022, Plaintiffs Yeqing Xia, Rui Zhang, Song Yao Li, and Ting Li (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed a Complaint in this Court against Defendants California Investment Immigration Fund, LLC, Victoria Chan, Tat Chan, and Fang Zeng (collectively, “Defendants”), alleging the following claims for relief: (1) intentional misrepresentation; (2) negligent misrepresentation; (3) fraudulent concealment; (4) breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; (5) breach of fiduciary duty; (6) conversion; (7) intentional infliction of emotional distress; (8) negligent infliction of emotional distress; (9) breach of written agreement; (10) professional negligence; and (11) common count (money had and received). Plaintiffs claim that this Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (diversity). See Civil Cover Sheet (Docket No. 1-1). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3) specifically states that “[i]f the court determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). Pursuant to Rule 12(h)(3), “a court may raise the question of subject matter jurisdiction, sua sponte, at any time during the pendency of the action, even on appeal.” Snell v. Cleveland, Inc., 316 F.3d 822, 826 (9th Cir. 2002); see also Emerich v. Touche Ross & Co., 846 F.2d 1190, 1194 n. 2 (9th Cir. 1988) (noting that "[i]t is elementary that the subject matter jurisdiction of the district court is not a waivable matter and may be raised at anytime by one of the parties, by motion or in the responsive pleadings, or sua sponte by the trial or reviewing court"). As relevant here, 28 U.S.C. §1332(a) provides that “[t]he district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and is between . . . citizens of a State and citizens or subjects of a foreign state . . .” However, there is no jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(2) in actions by one foreign subject against another, even if there is a citizen defendant present. Faysound, Ltd. v. United Coconut Chemicals, Inc., 878 F.2d 290, 294-95 (9th Cir.1989). As alleged in the Complaint, Plaintiffs’ Notice of Interested Parties (Docket No. 9), and Plaintiffs' Civil Cover Sheet (Docket No. 1-1), Plaintiffs are all citizens of China, and at least one defendant is a citizen of China. See Complaint ¶1 (alleging Plaintiffs are residents of China); Notice of Interested Parties (alleging that all Plaintiffs are citizens of China); Complaint ¶ 5 (alleging that Fang Zeng is a Chinese national, who will contend she is a citizen of China, but who legally resides in the United States);1 Plaintiffs' Civil Cover Sheet (noting that a defendant is a citizen or subject of a foreign country). Accordingly, because there is no jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(2) in actions by one foreign subject against another, this action is DISMISSED without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. IT IS SO ORDERED.

1“[A]lienage or diversity jurisdiction does not extend to cases involving one alien suing another alien, even if one of them is domiciled in the U.S. . . . The Court [ ] reads § 1332(a)(2) as treating a foreign citizen permanently admitted for residency in the U.S. as a citizen for purposes of destroying jurisdiction, but not creating it.” Alexanian v. FCA US, LLC, 2020 WL 949071, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 27, 2020)