Opinion
No. 2:12-cv-00702-RSM
08-07-2012
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
DISMISS PLAINTIFF'S CLAIMS
FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER
JURISDICTION
ORDER
This Court has considered Defendant's motion to dismiss Plaintiff's claims for lack of jurisdiction pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1). See Dkt. #18. Plaintiff asserts subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332. See Dkt. #7. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1) confers upon federal courts jurisdiction over "civil actions where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $10,000 . . . and is between . . . citizens of different States." For the exercise of subject matter jurisdiction to be proper in a diversity case, no plaintiff can be a citizen of the same state as any defendant. Owen Equipment & Erection Co. v. Kroger, 437 U.S. 365, 373 (1978). Diversity is determined as of the time the complaint was filed, Mann v. City of Tuscon, 782 F.2d 790, 794 (9th Cir. 1986), and the burden of proving jurisdictional facts is on the party asserting jurisdiction, McNutt v. General Motors Acceptance Corp., 298 U.S. 178, 182; Fenton v. Freedman, 748 F.2d 1358, 1359 n. 1 (9th Cir. 1984). The diversity statute is construed strictly and doubts are resolved against finding jurisdiction. Kantor v. Wellesley Galleries, Ltd., 704 F.2d 1088, 1092 (9th Cir. 1983).
Plaintiff asserts that he is a citizen of Washington. See Dkt. #1, Ex. 3. Defendant, a corporation, is also a citizen of Washington. See Dkt. #19. See also 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1); Industrial Tectonics Inc. v. Aero Alloy, 912 F.2d 1090, 1092 (9th Cir.1990) (holding that a corporation is a citizen of the state in which it is incorporated and of the state in which it has its principal place of business). Because the parties are not diverse, this court lacks subject matter jurisdiction.
Now, therefore, it is hereby
ORDERED that all claims of Plaintiff, Maurice Patrick are dismissed in their entirety.
____________
RICARDO S. MARTINEZ
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE