Opinion
Case No. 15-cv-02202-JST
09-16-2015
SHIERKATZ RLLP, Plaintiff, v. SQUARE, INC., Defendant.
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
The complaint in this case alleges federal jurisdiction on the basis of 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2). ECF No. 21 at ¶ 3. That statute requires that at least one member of the putative plaintiff class be "a citizen of a State different from any defendant." Id.
Plaintiffs' complaint alleges that "Defendant Square, Inc. (Credit Card Company) is a Delaware corporation registered with the California Secretary of State as a foreign corporation qualified to do business in the State of California and which has its principle place of business in San Francisco, California," id. at ¶ 2, but does not allege that at least one member of the putative class is a citizen of a state other than California or Delaware.
To identify a corporation's citizenship for purposes of diversity jurisdiction, "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 . . . ." 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1) (1994). For this reason, "a corporation is typically a citizen of two states for determining the existence of diversity jurisdiction: the state of incorporation and the state in which it has its principal place of business." Breitman v. May Co. California, 37 F.3d 562, 564 (9th Cir.1994).
"It is a principle of first importance that the federal courts are tribunals of limited subject matter jurisdiction." 13 Charles Alan Wright, Arthur Miller, Edward Cooper & Richard Freer, Federal Practice & Procedure § 3522. "The requirement that jurisdiction be established as a threshold matter 'spring[s] from the nature and limits of the judicial power of the United States' and is 'inflexible and without exception.'" Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env't, 523 U.S. 83, 94-95, (1998) (quoting Mansfield, C. & L.M.R. Co. v. Swan, 111 U.S. 379, 382 (1884)). Accordingly, in a diversity action, the plaintiff must state the parties' citizenships such that the existence of diversity can be confirmed. Kanter v. Warner-Lambert Co., 265 F.3d 853, 857 (9th Cir. 2001).
Plaintiff's complaint does not satisfy this requirement. Within ten days of the filing date of this order, Plaintiff Shierkatz RLLP is ordered to show cause why the Court should not dismiss this action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Defendant Square, Inc. shall file any reply within seven days of the filing of Plaintiff's response to this Order.
The Court notes that defendant Square has agreed in its prior filings that the Court has subject matter jurisdiction. ECF No. 27 at 4. The stipulation of the parties, however, is insufficient to create subject matter jurisdiction. 3250 Wilshire Blvd. Bldg. v. W.R. Grace & Co.- Connecticut, 933 F.2d 1016 (9th Cir. 1991). --------
The hearing on Defendant's Motion to Dismiss First Amended Complaint or in the Alternative to Stay and to Compel Arbitration, presently scheduled on October 1, 2015, is vacated. The hearing on that motion will be rescheduled if the Court determines that it has subject matter jurisdiction and that a hearing on the motion is required. Civ. L.R. 7-1(b).
IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: September 16, 2015
/s/_________
JON S. TIGAR
United States District Judge
Montrose Chem. Corp. of California v. Am. Motorists Ins. Co., 117 F.3d 1128, 1134 (9th Cir. 1997); Weaver v. Nestle USA, Inc., No. C 08-03636 JSW, 2008 WL 5453734, at *1-2 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 30, 2008).