Opinion
2:21-cv-06175-RGK-KS
02-17-2022
New Vision Contractors, Inc. v. Stealth Consulting Management, Inc.
Present: The Honorable R. GARY KLAUSNER, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Proceedings: (IN CHAMBERS) Order Re: Plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgment [DE 25]
I. INTRODUCTION
On July 30, 2021, New Vision Contractors, Inc. (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Stealth Consulting Management, Inc. (“Defendant”) for breach of contract, false promise, and unjust enrichment. (See Compl., ECF No. 1.) On November 4, 2021, the Clerk entered default against Defendant. Presently before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgment. (ECF No. 25.) For the following reasons, the Court DISMISSES this action, finding that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction, and accordingly DENIES Plaintiff's Motion as moot.
II. DISCUSSION
Plaintiff asserts that the Court has diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Section 1332 provides that district courts shall have original jurisdiction over any civil action in which the parties are citizens of different states, and the action involves an amount in controversy that exceeds $75,000. 28 U.S.C. § 1332.
Here, Plaintiff and Defendant are not citizens of different states; both are citizens of California. 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. § 1332(c)(1) (emphasis added). A corporation can therefore be a dual citizen. Plaintiff “is a California corporation, doing business in Los Angeles County, California, ” making it a citizen of only California. (Pl.'s Mot. Default J. at 2.) However, Defendant “is a Delaware corporation . . . and doing business in Los Angeles County, California.” (Id.) It appears that Defendant's principal place of business is California, which would make it a citizen of both Delaware and California. (Id.) Because Plaintiff does not sufficiently allege that there is complete diversity, the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction.
III. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court DISMISSES this case and accordingly DENIES Plaintiff's Motion as moot.
IT IS SO ORDERED.