From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

AIG Prop. Cas. Co. v. Harken

United States District Court, Northern District of California
Feb 12, 2024
3:24-cv-00303-JSC (N.D. Cal. Feb. 12, 2024)

Opinion

3:24-cv-00303-JSC

02-12-2024

AIG PROPERTY CASUALTY COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. ALEXANDER HARKEN, et al., Defendants.


Re: Dkt. No. 1

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: DIVERSITY JURISDICTION

JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY, United States District Judge

AIG Property Casualty Company (“AIG”) filed a complaint in this Court. (Dkt. No. 1.) AIG contends the Court has subject matter jurisdiction “pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1) because the amount in controversy exceeds the sum of $75,000 exclusive to interest and costs and this action is between citizens of different states.” (Id. ¶ 7.) A federal court's diversity jurisdiction extends to “all civil actions where the matter in controversy exceeds . . . $75,000 . . . and is between . . . citizens of different States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1). “This statute . . . require[s] complete diversity of citizenship” meaning “each defendant” must be “a citizen of a different State from each plaintiff.” Owen Equip. & Erection Co. v. Kroger, 437 U.S. 365, 373 (1978).

In its complaint, AIG asserts four Defendants are citizens of California for diversity purposes (Defendants Alexander Harken, Angela Aquino-Sales, James Sales, and Ajay Martin), and one Defendant, UDR, Inc., is a citizen of both Maryland and Colorado for diversity purposes. (Id. ¶¶ 2-6.) The federal diversity jurisdiction statute provides “a corporation shall be deemed to be a citizen of every State and foreign state by which it has been incorporated and of the State or foreign state where it has its principal place of business.” 28 U.S.C.A. § 1332(c)(a); see also Hertz Corp. v. Friend, 559 U.S. 77, 80 (2010). AIG asserts it is “an insurance company authorized to do and doing business in the State of California.” (Id. ¶ 1.) However, AIG does not allege its state of incorporation or principal place of business, and therefore does not allege its own citizenship. So, the complaint insufficiently alleges subject-matter jurisdiction because the complaint does not allege complete diversity between the parties.

Accordingly, the Court ORDERS AIG to, on or before February 20, 2024, show on the record the existence of diversity subject matter jurisdiction. Plaintiff may submit an Amended Complaint which properly alleges AIG's citizenship if it chooses.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

AIG Prop. Cas. Co. v. Harken

United States District Court, Northern District of California
Feb 12, 2024
3:24-cv-00303-JSC (N.D. Cal. Feb. 12, 2024)
Case details for

AIG Prop. Cas. Co. v. Harken

Case Details

Full title:AIG PROPERTY CASUALTY COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. ALEXANDER HARKEN, et al.…

Court:United States District Court, Northern District of California

Date published: Feb 12, 2024

Citations

3:24-cv-00303-JSC (N.D. Cal. Feb. 12, 2024)