Titan Indemnity Company v. Walter L. Eaton, Jr.
Filing
6
(IN CHAMBERS) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE by Judge Josephine Staton Tucker, WHY THIS CASE SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION: Accordingly, the Court orders Plaintiff to show cause in writing no later than June 13, 2012, why this action should not be dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Failure to respond by the above date will result in the Court dismissing this action. The Court further orders that Plaintiff shall promptly serve this minute order on any defendant who has been served with the Complaint, or who is served before the date specified above. (rla)
<![CDATA[
____________________________________________________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
Case No. SACV12-807-JST (RNBx)
Title: Titan Indemnity Co. v. Walter L. Eaton, Jr.
Date: May 31, 2012
Present: Honorable JOSEPHINE STATON TUCKER, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Ellen Matheson
Deputy Clerk
ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR PLAINTIFF:
Not Present
N/A
Court Reporter
ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR DEFENDANT:
Not Present
PROCEEDINGS: (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THIS
CASE SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR LACK OF
SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION
This action was filed in this Court on May 18, 2012. However, it appears that the
Court may lack subject matter jurisdiction. Jurisdiction has been asserted on the basis of
diversity pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Plaintiff Titan Indemnity Co. is a corporation;
therefore, the Complaint must show that both the state of incorporation and the principal
place of business of the Plaintiff are diverse from the Defendant in order to establish
Diversity Jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c). The Complaint states “[i]ncorporated there,
[Plaintiff] is a Texas corporation, which is licensed and authorized to engage in the
business of insurance in California.” (Compl. ¶ 2, Doc. 1.) While this statement provides
Plaintiff’s state of incorporation, Plaintiff’s principal place of business is not clearly
alleged. If California is the Plaintiff’s principal place of business, then the Plaintiff is not
diverse from the Defendant and diversity is destroyed. See Strawbridge v. Curtiss, 7 U.S.
(3 Cranch) 267, 267 (1806).
Accordingly, the Court orders Plaintiff to show cause in writing no later than June
13, 2012, why this action should not be dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction. Failure to respond by the above date will result in the Court
dismissing this action.
The Court further orders that Plaintiff shall promptly serve this minute order on
any defendant who has been served with the Complaint, or who is served before the date
specified above.
Initials of Preparer: enm
______________________________________________________________________________
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
1
]]>
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?
