Tenorio Plata et al v. Darbun Enterprises, Inc. et al, No. 3:2009cv00044 - Document 120 (S.D. Cal. 2010)
Court Description: ORDER denying Plaintiffs' 100 Motion to Dismiss. Court sua sponte dismisses the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Plaintiffs' motion to voluntarily dismiss w/o prejudice is denied. Signed by Judge Irma E. Gonzalez on 5/6/2010. (jah)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Tenorio Plata et al v. Darbun Enterprises, Inc. et al Doc. 120 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 JAVIER TENORIO PLATA, an individual; DELORES GALVEZ MONTES, an individual;ALFONSO VICTOR INCLAN COSTA, an individual; GERMAN VASQUEZ FIGUEROA, an individual; MICHELL ARIANNE CURTO GONGORA, an individual; CARLOS ACEVEDO MENDOZA, an individual; LUIS DELGADO PICASSO, an individual; RUBEN ARMAND ROBLES DIAZ, an individual; GRACIELA HERRERA RODRIGUEZ, an individual; MARIA DE LOS ANGELES SANDOVAL, an individual;REINALDO RODRIGUEZ VELASQUEZ, an individual; BRAULIO ALBERTO DELGADO BRASIA, an individual; FRANCISCA GASTELUM ARAGON, an individual; MARIA DE LA VILLANET SANCHEZ GUZMAN, an individual; YADIRA CAMBREROS PINEDA, an individual; REBECCA GUTEIRREZ JUAREZ, an individual; and MARTHA HUIZAR N., an individual, CASE NO. 09-CV-0044-IEG (CAB) ORDER: (1) DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO VOLUNTARILY DISMISS THE ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE (Doc. No. 100); and (2) DISMISSING THE ACTION FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION. Plaintiffs, 23 vs. 24 25 26 27 28 DARBUN ENTERPRISES, INC., a California corporation; OEM SOLUTIONS, LLC, a California limited liability company; and DOES 1through 10, inclusive Defendants. -1- 09cv0044 Dockets.Justia.com 1 2 Presently before the Court is Plaintiffs’ motion to voluntarily dismiss the action without prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Doc. No. 100.) 3 Defendant Darbun Enterprises, Inc. filed an opposition and a supplemental opposition. 4 Plaintiffs have not filed a reply. The motion is suitable for disposition without oral argument pursuant 5 to Local Civil Rule 7.1(d)(1). For the reasons stated herein, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs’ motion to 6 voluntarily dismiss without prejudice and DISMISSES the action for lack of subject matter 7 jurisdiction. 8 FACTUAL BACKGROUND 9 This matter involves the enforcement of a foreign judgment. Plaintiffs are eighteen individuals 10 who were employed by Soluciones Tecnologicas de Mexico, S.A. de C.V. (“STM”). On May 31, 11 2000, Plaintiffs commenced an action for unpaid wages against STM and Defendants OEM Solutions, 12 LLC and Darbun Enterprises, Inc. before the Number One Special Local and Conciliation and 13 Arbitrage Local Authority of the City of Tijuana, Baja California, Mexico (the “Labor Relations 14 Board”). On September 5, 2003, the Labor Relations Board handed down its judgment in favor of 15 Plaintiffs. 16 17 PROCEDURAL HISTORY I. Plaintiffs’ Complaint and First Amended Complaint 18 On January 12, 2009, Plaintiffs commenced this action for recognition of the Mexican 19 judgment pursuant to the Uniform Foreign-Country Money Judgments Recognition Act, California 20 Code of Civil Procedure § 1713 et seq. Plaintiffs allege subject matter jurisdiction based on diversity 21 jurisdiction, and that each of the eighteen plaintiffs resides in Tijuana, Baja California, Mexico. (Doc. 22 No. 1.) Plaintiffs’ Complaint names Defendants Darbun Enterprises (“Defendant”) and OEM 23 Solutions, LLC,1 both California companies. Defendant filed an answer and counterclaim to void the 24 foreign judgment and for fraud. (Doc. No. 16.) 25 On April 30, 2009, Plaintiffs filed a motion for writ of attachment requesting that the Court 26 attach Defendant’s assets. (Doc. No. 18.) On June 10, 2009, pursuant to an argument raised in 27 28 1 Plaintiff never served the Complaint or First Amended Complaint on Defendant OEM Solutions, LLC. -2- 09cv0044 1 Defendant’s opposition, the Court issued an order to show cause why the case should not be dismissed 2 for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.2 (Doc. No. 51.) The Court explained that Plaintiffs’ 3 jurisdictional allegations were deficient because they were premised on Plaintiffs’ residency, and not 4 citizenship. 5 On June 29, 2009, the Court sua sponte granted Plaintiffs leave to amend the Complaint to cure 6 the jurisdictional defects. (Doc. No. 58.) Subsequently, Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint 7 (“FAC”) on July 9, 2009.3 (Doc. No. 61.) Plaintiffs’ FAC alleges each plaintiff “is a citizen of 8 Mexico and domiciled in Tijuana, Baja California, Mexico as of the commencement of this action.” 9 (FAC ¶¶ 2-19.) On September 23, 2009, the Court denied Plaintiffs’ motion for writ of attachment 10 because Plaintiffs failed to show that they were more likely than not to meet their burden of proving 11 that the Mexican judgment is not a penalty. (Doc. No. 82.) 12 II. Jurisdictional Discovery 13 Defendant served discovery on Plaintiffs designed to discover whether any plaintiff was a 14 permanent resident alien domiciled in California and for the production of documents relevant to the 15 issue of whether the judgment constitutes a penalty. Due to Plaintiffs’ failure to respond, Defendant 16 filed a motion to compel on January 19, 2010. (Doc. No. 96.) 17 On February 12, 2010, the date of the hearing on Defendant’s motion to compel, Plaintiffs filed 18 the instant motion to voluntarily dismiss this case without prejudice. (Doc. No. 100.) Plaintiffs state 19 that “Plaintiffs’ counsel now believes in good faith that diversity jurisdiction over this case is 20 potentially lacking”: 21 It has come to counsel for Plaintiffs’ attention on or about Friday, February 5, 2010 22 2 23 24 25 26 27 28 There were also three other motions pending at the time: Plaintiffs’ motion to dismiss counterclaim (Doc. No. 20), Defendant’s motion for order for Plaintiffs to furnish security for payment of costs (Doc. No. 22), and Defendant’s motion to stay case (Doc. No. 23). The Court later granted Plaintiffs’ motion, and denied Defendant’s motions. (Doc. No. 82.) 3 Plaintiffs initially filed an amended complaint on July 8, 2009, then re-filed the amended complaint on July 9, 2009 (Doc. Nos. 60 & 61) in response to the Court’s request that the caption of the amended complaint reflect that it was Plaintiffs’ “First Amended Complaint.” The re-filed amended complaint still failed to indicate it was Plaintiffs’ first amended complaint. As such, Plaintiffs filed an “Amended Document to Correct Caption” on July 20, 2009, indicating the re-filed amended complaint’s caption should read “First Amended Complaint.” (Doc. No. 73.) The Court therefore construes the re-filed amended complaint (Doc. No. 61) as the operative “First Amended Complaint” in this case. -3- 09cv0044 1 2 3 4 5 that there is a potential issue regarding this Court’s subject matter jurisdiction, in that it is arguable that one plaintiff’s domicile can be construed as being in San Diego, California. Although it is by no means conclusive, in that this plaintiff still maintains a residence in Tijuana, Mexico and still has a valid voter registration card in Tijuana, Mexico that has previously been introduced as evidence in this case, that plaintiff has not only maintained a residence in San Diego as of the date of the filing of this action, but has also applied for United States citizenship. (Pls.’s Mot. to Dismiss ¶¶ 1, 3.) 6 On February 12, 2010, Magistrate Judge Cathy Ann Bencivengo issued an order granting the 7 motion to compel, remarking that a number of the unanswered discovery requests would have 8 provided necessary information about the plaintiff’s domicile months ago. 9 Magistrate Judge Bencivengo ordered that, no later than February 19, 2010, Plaintiffs were to provide 10 Defendant with: (1) declarations under penalty of perjury from any and all Plaintiffs who claim 11 residence or domicile in California with the supporting facts that provide the basis of Plaintiffs’ 12 conclusion that diversity was lacking at the time this action was removed to federal court; and (2) 13 statements under penalty of perjury for all remaining Plaintiffs confirming that their residence or 14 domicile at the time of removal did not defeat diversity jurisdiction. (Doc. No. 103.) (Doc. No. 103.) 15 On February 16, 2010, Defendant filed an opposition to Plaintiffs’ motion to voluntarily 16 dismiss without prejudice, arguing that it is entitled to an appropriate amount of time to determine if 17 dismissal is warranted for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. (Doc. No. 102.) 18 On February 24, 2010, five days late, Plaintiffs filed a declaration from Plaintiff Delores 19 Galvez Montes (“Montes”), in which Montes states that she is a Mexican citizen, has maintained a 20 residence in San Diego for the past four or five years, has a “green card,” is planning on applying for 21 U.S. citizenship, and intends to stay in San Diego permanently. (Declaration of Delores Galvex 22 Montes (“Montes Decl.”) ¶¶ 2, 4-5) (Doc. No. 108.) Montes also states that she owns a house in 23 Tijuana, which she and her family “occasionally reside in on weekends.” (Montes Decl. ¶ 3.) As to 24 the remaining seventeen plaintiffs, Plaintiffs’ counsel provided a group affidavit denying permanent 25 resident alien status. (Declaration of Bruce Sherman in Supp. of Def.’s Opp’n to Pl.’s Mot. (“Sherman 26 Decl.”), Ex. 1) The affidavit, however, is missing a signature from Plaintiff Luis Delgado Picasso. 27 According to Defendant, Plaintiffs’ counsel has not responded to emails regarding the missing 28 signature. (Sherman Decl., Ex. 2.) -4- 09cv0044 1 On February 26, 2010, Magistrate Judge Bencivengo issued an order finding that Montes’ 2 declaration was inadequate because it was ambiguous as to precisely when Montes obtained her 3 permanent resident alien status. (Doc. No. 110.) Accordingly, Magistrate Judge Bencivengo ordered 4 Plaintiffs’ counsel to provide a true and correct copy of Montes’ legal permanent resident alien 5 documentation, and to provide statements under penalty of perjury from the remaining plaintiffs 6 acknowledging their residence status. (Doc. No. 110.) 7 At the status conference on March 19, 2010, the parties represented that they were prepared 8 to go forward with Plaintiffs’ motion to voluntarily dismiss without prejudice, and Magistrate Judge 9 Bencivengo set a supplemental briefing schedule. (Doc. No. 114.) Defendant filed a supplemental 10 opposition and accompanying declarations. Plaintiffs have not filed a reply. 11 12 DISCUSSION Plaintiffs move the Court to grant their motion for voluntary dismissal without prejudice 13 pursuant to Rule 41(a)(2)of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, on the ground that Plaintiffs’ 14 counsel now believes that diversity jurisdiction is lacking.4 Defendant, on the other hand, argues 15 that the Court should dismiss the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.5 Because the 16 evidence before the Court clearly shows that diversity jurisdiction is lacking, the Court finds it 17 appropriate to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 18 Plaintiffs’ original Complaint and FAC allege subject matter jurisdiction based on diversity 19 jurisdiction. The diversity jurisdiction statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1332, provides: “The district courts 20 shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum 21 or value of $ 75,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and is between . . . citizens of a State and 22 23 24 25 26 27 4 A plaintiff may voluntarily dismiss an action without a court order if the plaintiff files a notice of dismissal before the opposing party serves either an answer or a motion for summary judgment, or files a stipulation of dismissal signed by all parties who have appeared. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A). Otherwise, an action may be dismissed at the plaintiff's request only by court order, on terms that the court considers proper. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2). “A motion for voluntary dismissal under Rule 41(a)(2) is addressed to the district court’s sound discretion and the court’s order will not be disturbed unless the court has abused its discretion.” Stevedoring Services of America v. Armilla Intern. B.V., 889 F.2d 919, 921 (9th Cir. 1989). 5 28 Alternatively, Defendant argues that if the Court allows voluntary dismissal without prejudice, the dismissal should be conditioned on payment of Defendant’s costs and attorney’s fees for unnecessary expense caused by the litigation. -5- 09cv0044 1 citizens or subjects of a foreign state . . . .” 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (2009). In a diversity case, all 2 plaintiffs must be of different citizenship than all defendants. Strawbridge v. Curtis,7 U.S. 267 3 (1806). Where a party is an alien admitted to the United States for permanent residence, the alien 4 shall be deemed a citizen of the State in which such alien is domiciled. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). “A 5 person’s domicile is her permanent home, where she resides with the intention to remain or to 6 which she intends to return.” Kanter v. Warner-Lambert Co., 265 F.3d 853, 857 (9th Cir. 2001). 7 This action was commenced fifteen months ago, and the parties have completed 8 jurisdictional discovery. The evidence shows that complete diversity is lacking, because Montes, 9 a permanent resident alien, was domiciled in California on January 12, 2009, when Plaintiffs 10 commenced this action. According to Montes’ statements in her declaration, under penalty of 11 perjury, she maintains a residence in San Diego, California, has obtained a green card and worked 12 in the United States for the last two or three years, and intends to stay in San Diego permanently. 13 (Montes Decl. ¶ 5.) Defendant attaches to its supplemental opposition Montes’ March 18, 2010 14 deposition, in which she confirms that she has had permanent resident status in the United States 15 since June of 2005, and has lived in San Diego continuously since 2004. (Sherman Decl., Ex. 4 at 16 13:6-20, 39:20-22.) Plaintiffs’ counsel states that this is not conclusive because Montes still 17 maintains a residence in Tijuana, Mexico, which she and her family “occasionally reside in on 18 weekends.” (Montes Decl. ¶¶ 2-3.) However, at her deposition, Montes states unequivocally that 19 for the past five years she has had tenants in the house in Tijuana and has not lived there. 20 (Sherman Decl., Ex. 3 at 41:10-25.) Plaintiffs have not filed a reply. It is apparent from the documents submitted by the parties that California is Montes’ 21 22 permanent home and where she resides with the intention to remain. See Kanter, 265 F.3d at 857. 23 Because one of the Plaintiffs was domiciled in California at the time Plaintiffs commenced this 24 action, complete diversity is lacking. 25 // 26 // 27 // 28 // -6- 09cv0044 1 CONCLUSION 2 The Court sua sponte DISMISSES the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 3 4 Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ motion to voluntarily dismiss the action without prejudice is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 6 DATED: May 6, 2010 7 8 IRMA E. GONZALEZ, Chief Judge United States District Court 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -7- 09cv0044
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
