Opinion
Case No. SACV 13-00151-JST (RNBx)
03-08-2013
Mohammad A. Redjai, et al. v. Hartford Casualty Insurance Co., et al.
ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR PLAINTIFF: Not Present ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR DEFENDANT: Not Present
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Present: Honorable JOSEPHINE STATON TUCKER , UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
+-----------------------------+ ¦Dwayne Roberts¦N/A ¦ +--------------+--------------¦ ¦Deputy Clerk ¦Court Reporter¦ +-----------------------------+ ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR PLAINTIFF:
Not Present ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR DEFENDANT:
Not Present
PROCEEDINGS: (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO SHOW CAUSE RE: SUBJECT-MATTER JURISDICTION
Plaintiffs Mohammad A. Redjai and Shahin Redjai (collectively, "Plaintiffs") filed this case in federal court on the basis of diversity jurisdiction and federal question jurisdiction. (Compl. ¶¶ 2-3, Doc. 1.) Plaintiffs assert that Defendant Hartford Casualty Insurance Company ("Defendant") is "a New Jersey Company doing business in California." (Id. ¶8.) It appears to the Court that Defendant is a corporation. Assuming this is correct, Plaintiffs must allege not only Defendant's state of incorporation, but also its principal place of business in order to plead diversity jurisdiction. That Defendant "does business in California" is not material to its citizenship. See Lincoln Prop. Co. v. Roche, 546 U.S. 81, 94 (2005)("A corporation shall be deemed to be a citizen of any State by which it has been incorporated and of the State where it has its principal place of business.")(quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1)). Diversity only exists between "citizens of different States." 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1). Because Plaintiffs fail to identify Defendant's principal place of business, the Court cannot determine whether the parties are diverse. Lincoln Prop. Co., 546 U.S. 81 at 84 ("diversity of citizenship [exists] if there is complete diversity between all named plaintiffs and all named defendants.").
Plaintiffs additionally assert that this Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, because the case at bar "address[es] the deprivation of rights secured by federal law." (Compl. ¶3.) The only federal law that Plaintiffs cite to is the Declaratory Judgment Act (28 U.S.C. §§ 2201-2202), which authorizes the Court to grant declaratory relief. (Id.) However, "[t]he Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201, does not itself confer federal subject matter jurisdiction." Fidelity & Cas. Co. of N.Y. v. Reserve Ins. Co., 596 F.2d 914, 916 (9th Cir. 1979.) Plaintiffs assert no other federal laws that could serve as the basis for federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. (Compl.)
Finally, Plaintiffs also assert that the Court has supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Section 1367(a). (Compl. ¶ 4.) "The supplemental-jurisdiction statute is not a source of original subject-matter jurisdiction." Pac. Bell v. Covad Commc'ns Co., No. C 99-1491 SI, 1999 WL 390840 at *3 (N.D.Cal. June 8, 1999) (quoting Ahearn v. Charter Twp. Of Bloomfield, 100 F.3d 451, 456 (6th Cir.1996)); see also Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Roy, No. 5:11-cv-06154 EJD, 2012 WL 195513 *2 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 23, 2012).
Accordingly, Plaintiffs are ordered to show cause no later than March 22, 2013, why this case should not be dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Failure to timely respond will result in immediate dismissal of this action.
Initials of Preparer: ___ dr ___