Unpublished Disposition, 886 F.2d 334 (9th Cir. 1988)

MEMORANDUM^** 

The plaintiff-appellant appeals from an order of April 19, 1988, denying her motion for reconsideration. The district judge declined to reconsider his prior orders of March 2 and March 8, 1988. In dismissing the complaint, the district judge found that the alleged grounds for jurisdiction in the plaintiff's complaint were not supported by a factual description that would permit the court to exercise jurisdiction. The ruling was correct and we affirm.

A party asserting jurisdiction must submit facts to support a finding of jurisdiction. See Societe de Conditionnement en Aluminum v. Hunter Engineering Co. Inc., 655 F.2d 938, 942 (9th Cir. 1981).

Federal question jurisdiction exists when an action arises under the Constitution, laws or treaties of the United States. 28 U.S.C. § 1331; Caterpillar Tractor, Co. v. Williams, 207 S. Ct. 2425, 2429 (1987). A court determines a federal question by looking to the face of the plaintiff's well pleaded complaint. Caterpillar, 207 S. Ct. at 2429. The judge's order of March 8, 1988 observed that, if Winters had a valid cause of action, it was subject to state court, not federal court, jurisdiction.

Here, Winters had alleged that she had been injured while a passenger in a motor vehicle which collided with another vehicle and that Farmers Insurance Company breached its duty to her, conspiring with her attorney to distress her. She has stated no facts which could support a claim under federal law. See United Air Lines, Inc. v. Division of Indus. Safety, 633 F.2d 814, 816 (9th Cir. 1980) (action plainly based on state law), disapproved of on other grounds, Southern Pac. Transp. Co. v. Public Utilities Comm'n of California, 716 F.2d 1285 (9th Cir. 1983).

Diversity jurisdiction requires that the plaintiff and each defendant be citizens of different states. Munoz v. Small Business Administration, 644 F.2d 1361, 1365 (9th Cir. 1981). A corporation is a citizen of the state where it is incorporated and where it has its principal place of business. Id. An individual is a citizen of the state in which he or she is domiciled.

Because Winters admits that all defendants except Farmers Insurance reside in Washington, there is no diversity jurisdiction.

Finally, the district judge observed that Winters' complaint was frivolous. She has made general allegations that the defendants and the State of Washington have denied her the right to justice. Because all defendants sued are private persons or a privately owned corporation, their actions cannot be fairly treated as action by the State.

She has not stated a claim that the defendants have acted "under color of state law." See Bretz v. Kelman, 773 F.2d 1026, 1028 (9th Cir. 1985) (no cause of action under 42 U.S.C. § 1985(2) or (3)); Aasum v. Good Samaritan Hosp., 542 F.2d 792, 794 (9th Cir. 1976) (discriminatory conduct must result from action under color of state law for district court jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1343.)

AFFIRMED. The appellant's motion for correction of the record is denied. No petition for rehearing will be entertained.