(PS) Rivera et al v. California Community Housing Agency et al, No. 2:2021cv00651 - Document 5 (E.D. Cal. 2021)
Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 05/26/2021 RECOMMENDING that the action be dismissed without prejudice. Referred to Judge Troy L. Nunley. Objections due within 14 days after being served with these findings and recommendations. (Rodriguez, E)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(PS) Rivera et al v. California Community Housing Agency et al Doc. 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 GEORGE RIVERA; CARMEN MARTINEZ, 12 Plaintiffs, 13 v. 14 No. 2:21–cv–0651–TLN-CKD PS FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS (ECF Nos. 1, 4) CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY HOUSING AGENCY, et al., 15 16 Defendants. 17 On April 12, 2021, plaintiffs filed a fee-paid complaint initiating this action asserting 18 19 California state landlord-tenant claims against three named defendants. 1 (ECF No. 1.) Because 20 plaintiffs failed to adequately allege the citizenship of each party named in their suit, on April 21, 21 2021, the undersigned ordered plaintiffs to amend the complaint to properly allege the court’s 22 diversity jurisdiction over this case within 30 days. (ECF No. 4.) If plaintiffs could not do so in 23 good faith, they were to instead file a notice of voluntary dismissal within the same time. (Id. 24 at 5-6.) That deadline has now passed without any response from plaintiffs. Accordingly, the 25 undersigned recommends that this case be dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. 26 27 28 1 Because plaintiffs are representing themselves in this action, all pre-trial proceedings are referred to the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and E.D. Cal. Local Rule 302(c)(21). 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 As explained in the show cause order (ECF No. 4), the court cannot determine from the 2 current complaint whether there is federal subject-matter jurisdiction over this case. None of the 3 defendants have yet appeared or responded to the complaint, but courts have “an independent 4 obligation to determine whether subject-matter jurisdiction exists, even when no party challenges 5 it.” Hertz Corp. v. Friend, 559 U.S. 77, 94 (2010). Pursuant to Rule 12(h)(3) of the Federal 6 Rules of Civil Procedure, “[i]f the court determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter 7 jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action.” 8 9 Federal district courts have “diversity” jurisdiction over cases where the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and where the case is between 10 “citizens of different States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1). This provision requires complete diversity 11 of citizenship between the parties. “That is, diversity jurisdiction does not exist unless each 12 defendant is a citizen of a different State from each plaintiff.” Owen Equip. & Erection Co. v. 13 Kroger, 437 U.S. 365, 373 (1978); see Williams v. United Airlines, Inc., 500 F.3d 1019, 1025 14 (9th Cir. 2007). Importantly, “a party seeking to invoke diversity jurisdiction should be able to 15 allege affirmatively the actual citizenship of the relevant parties.” Kanter v. Warner-Lambert Co., 16 265 F.3d 853, 857 (9th Cir. 2001). Failure to specify each party’s state citizenship is fatal to an 17 assertion of diversity jurisdiction. Id. “The party asserting federal jurisdiction has the burden of 18 establishing it.” United States v. Orr Water Ditch Co., 600 F.3d 1152, 1157 (9th Cir. 2010). 19 Plaintiffs’ complaint only briefly addresses the court’s jurisdiction, stating: 20 Diversity jurisdiction exists because Plaintiffs reside in Idaho and all name[d] Defendants live in, are organized in, or have as their principal place of business in California, and this Complaint seeks damages in an amount qualifying for Diversity Jurisdiction. Defendants have been unable to obtain fair legal treatment in California due to substantial judicial corruption. 21 22 23 (ECF No. 1 at 2, Compl. ¶ 5.) These allegations are not nearly specific enough and do not 24 provide the information needed to assess the citizenship of each party. 25 The parties to this suit are the two plaintiffs (natural persons), and three named 26 defendants: (1) California Community Housing Agency, a Joint Exercise of Powers Agency, 27 (2) AMFP III Verdant, LLC, the former owner of the rental property where plaintiffs used to live, 28 2 1 and (3) Greene, Fidler & Chapman, LLP, a law firm allegedly hired to bring eviction proceedings 2 against plaintiffs. 3 First, plaintiffs fail to allege their own citizenship. For purposes of determining diversity 4 of citizenship, an individual person is deemed to be a citizen of the state in which he or she is 5 “domiciled.” Lew v. Moss, 797 F.2d 747, 749 (9th Cir. 1986). “In order to be a citizen of a State 6 within the meaning of the diversity statute, a natural person must both be a citizen of the United 7 States and be domiciled within the State.” Newman-Green, Inc. v. Alfonzo-Larrain, 490 U.S. 8 826, 828 (1989). 9 As to themselves, plaintiffs allege only that they “reside in Idaho.” (ECF No. 1 at 2.) But 10 residency is not the same as “domicile.” Alleging that a person is a “resident” of a state is not 11 adequate for purposes of alleging state citizenship, because a natural person’s state citizenship is 12 “determined by her state of domicile, not her state of residence. A person’s domicile is her 13 permanent home, where she resides with the intention to remain or to which she intends to 14 return.” Kanter, 265 F.3d at 857. Although it appears likely that plaintiffs are citizens of Idaho, 15 plaintiffs were required to forthrightly allege that they are “domiciled” in Idaho. They have 16 provided no amended complaint doing so. 17 Second, and of greater concern to the court, plaintiffs fail to allege the necessary facts to 18 establish the citizenship of the two unincorporated entities they are suing: AMFP III Verdant, 19 LLC (“AMFP”) and Greene, Fidler & Chapman, LLP (“Greene”). The citizenship of a limited 20 liability company, partnership, or other unincorporated entity is the citizenship of each of its 21 owners/members. See Johnson v. Columbia Props. Anchorage, LP, 437 F.3d 894, 899, 902 (9th 22 Cir. 2006) (“[L]ike a partnership, an LLC is a citizen of every state of which its owners/members 23 are citizens.”). The complaint does not identify any of AMFP’s or Greene’s owners/members or 24 their respective citizenships—except for alleging that Greene’s “princip[al] agent” is one Gary 25 Fidler. (ECF No. 1 at 1-2.) The show cause order explained that, without this information, the 26 court cannot determine whether AMFP or Greene might be a citizen of the same state as plaintiffs 27 (presumably, Idaho). Plaintiffs’ brief assertion that all named defendants “live in, are organized 28 in, or have as their principal place of business in California” does not help. (See ECF No. 1 at 2.) 3 1 The state in which an LLP or LLC is organized, or in which it has its principal place of business, 2 does not establish its citizenship for purposes of diversity jurisdiction. Rather, these entities are 3 considered citizens of every state of which any of their owners/members are citizens. 4 Therefore, the court ordered that, if plaintiffs chose to file an amended complaint, such 5 complaint must include a complete list of the members/owners of AMFP and Greene—and each 6 member’s state citizenship(s). (ECF No. 4 at 3-4.) The court explained in detail how plaintiffs 7 could determine these entities’ citizenships so as to sufficiently allege diversity jurisdiction. (Id. 8 at 4.) The court warned that failure to so amend would result in a recommendation that the case 9 be dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. (Id. at 6.) Plaintiffs have not submitted an 10 amended complaint addressing the jurisdictional deficiencies, or responded to the court’s prior 11 order at all. Accordingly, the undersigned recommends dismissing this case without prejudice for 12 lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. See Orr Water Ditch Co., 600 F.3d at 1157 (“The party 13 asserting federal jurisdiction has the burden of establishing it.”). 14 15 16 17 For these reasons, it is RECOMMENDED that: 1. The action be DISMISSED without prejudice and without leave to amend, for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction; and 2. The Clerk of Court be directed to CLOSE this case. 18 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 19 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen (14) 20 days after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiffs may file written 21 objections with the court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate 22 Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiffs are advised that failure to file objections 23 within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. 24 Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 25 Dated: May 26, 2021 _____________________________________ CAROLYN K. DELANEY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 26 27 28 19, rive.0651 4
]]>
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.
