Opinion
CV 21-59-H-SEH
10-13-2021
WILLIAM FENECH, JONATHAN HELMUTH, PINB ALL RUN FILM, LLC, JENNIFER SHENK, JEFFREY SHENK, KENT OYER, and MX GUARDIAN, LLC, Plaintiffs, v. KRISTINA HOGAN, THE ESTATE OF BRANDON KEITH HOGAN, PARADOX FILM GROUP, LLC, FAST JET DISTRIBUTION LLC, RED DEVIL SKYMASTER LLC, and OTHER JANE DOE ENTITIES 1 THROUGH 10, Defendants.
ORDER
SAM E. HADDON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
This case filed on August 3, 2021, asserts diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332.
See Doc. 1 at 4.
Federal district courts have original diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(3) for civil actions between "citizens of different States [with] citizens or subjects of a foreign state [as] additional parties" if the amount in controversy exceeds §75, 000, exclusive of interest and costs. Each defendant must be a citizen of a state different from each plaintiff.
See Newman-Green, Inc. v. Alfonzo-Larrain, 490 U.S. 826, 828 (1989).
See In re Digimarc Corp. Derivative Litig, 549 F.3d 1223, 1234 (9th Cir. 2008); see also 15A James Wm. Moore et al., Moore's Federal Practice § 102.71, pp. 102-235 to 102-236 (3d ed. 2018) ("Section 1332(a)(3) establishes a requirement of complete diversity between United States citizens, but permits aliens on each side of the dispute as additional parties.").
Several defendants are named. Several unidentified "Jane Doe Entities 1 through 10" are also designated as defendants. Inclusion of such unidentified "Doe" defendants "destroys [diversity] jurisdiction" in an original federal action.
See Doc. 1 at 5-7.
Doc. 1 at 7.
Garter-Bare Co. v. Munsingwear, Inc., 650 F.2d 975, 981 (9th Cir. 1980) (citing Molnarv. Nat'l Broad. Co., 231 F.2d 684 (9th Cir. 1956); Fifty Assocs. v. Prudential Ins. Co., 446 F.2d 1187, 1190 (9th Cir. 1970)); cf 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b)(1) (2018) (providing that "the Citizenship of defendants sued under fictitious names shall be disregarded" for purposes of diversity jurisdiction in the removal context).
Under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(h)(3), "[i]f the court determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action." Leave to amend nevertheless will be given.
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2) ("The court should freely give leave [to amend] when justice so requires."); Carolina Cas. Ins. Co. v. Team Equip., Inc., 741 F.3d 1082, 1086 (9th Cir. 2014) ("A complaint should not be dismissed without leave to amend unless amendment would be futile.").
ORDERED:
This case will be dismissed on October 29, 2021, unless the complaint is amended to properly plead jurisdiction.