Opinion
21cv1075-L(WVG)
06-09-2021
MICHAEL INGRANDE, Plaintiff, v. AUTOZONERS, LLC, Defendant.
ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO AMEND TO ALLEGE SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION
Hon. M. James Lorenz United States District Judge
In this employment discrimination action alleging violations of Cal. Gov't Code § 12940 claims federal jurisdiction based on diversity of citizenship under 28 U.S.C. §1332. (Compl. at 2.) Because it is not possible to determine on the face of the complaint that the parties are diverse, the action is dismissed with leave to amend to allege subject matter jurisdiction.
Unlike state courts,
Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. They possess only that power authorized by Constitution and statute, which is not to be expanded by judicial decree. It is to be presumed that a cause lies outside this limited jurisdiction, and the burden of establishing the contrary rests upon the party asserting jurisdiction.Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). Federal courts are constitutionally required to raise issues related to federal subject matter jurisdiction and may do so sua sponte. Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 514 (2006). A federal court must satisfy itself of its jurisdiction over the subject matter before proceeding to the merits of the case. Ruhrgas AG v. Marathon Oil Co., 526 U.S. 574, 577, 583 (1999).
Unless otherwise noted, internal quotation marks, citations, and footnotes are omitted.
"A plaintiff suing in a federal court must show in his pleading, affirmatively and distinctly, the existence of whatever is essential to federal jurisdiction, and, if he does not do so, the court, on having the defect called to its attention or on discovering the same, must dismiss the case, unless the defect be corrected by amendment.” Tosco Corp. v. Communities for a Better Env't, 236 F.3d 495, 499 (9th Cir. 2001), abrogated on other grounds by Hertz Corp. v. Friend, 559 U.S. 77, 82-83 (2010).
Under section 1332(a), subject matter jurisdiction exists in cases where the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 and the case is "between citizens of different states." To meet the requirement of diversity of citizenship, Plaintiff must show "complete diversity of citizenship." Caterpillar, Inc. v. Lewis, 519 U.S. 61, 68 (1996). This requirement is met when "the citizenship of each plaintiff is diverse from the citizenship of each defendant." Id. The complaint must affirmatively allege the state of citizenship of each party. Bautista v. Pan Am. World Airlines, Inc., 828 F.2d 546, 552 (9th Cir.1987); see also Kanter v. Warner-Lambert, Co., 265 F.3d 853 (9th Cir. 2001).
Although Plaintiff alleges he was Defendant's employee in San Diego County, he does not allege his domicile or citizenship. (See Compl. at 2.) Accordingly, Plaintiff does not allege his state of citizenship. See Kanter, 265 F.3d at 857.
Defendant is a limited liability company. The citizenship of a limited liability company for purposes of diversity jurisdiction is determined by examining the citizenship of each of its members. Carden v. Arkoma Assoc, 494 U.S. 185, 195-96 (1990); Johnson v. Columbia Properties Anchorage. L.P., 437 F.3d 894, 899 (9th Cir.2006). Plaintiff does not allege the citizenship of Defendant's members. (See Compl. at 2.) Accordingly, Defendant's citizenship cannot be determined from the face of the complaint.
Because Plaintiff does not allege any party's citizenship, he has not alleged diversity as required for subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. The complaint is dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1653, Plaintiff is granted leave to file an amended complaint to supplement his jurisdictional allegations. If Plaintiff chooses to file an amended complaint, he must do so no later than June 23, 2021.
IT IS SO ORDERED.