Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Hendricks v. Union Pacific Railroad

April 3, 2009

RHONDA HENDRICKS
v.
UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD



The opinion of the court was delivered by: The Honorable Dale S. Fischer, United States District Judge

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Proceedings: (IN CHAMBERS): ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION

This action was filed in this Court on March 18, 2009. However, it appears the Court may lack subject matter jurisdiction for the reason(s) opposite the box(es) checked:

[ ] Jurisdiction is asserted on the basis of federal question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 but it does not appear that any of the claims "arise under" federal law.

[ ] Jurisdiction is asserted on the basis of diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a), but all plaintiffs are not diverse from all defendants. See Strawbridge v. Curtiss, 7 U.S. (3 Cranch) 267 (1806).

[X] Jurisdiction is asserted on the basis of diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332, but the pleadings set forth the residence, rather than the citizenship, of some of the parties. Diversity is based on citizenship.

[ ] Jurisdiction is asserted on the basis of diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332, but the pleadings fail to allege the citizenship of some of the parties.

[ ] Jurisdiction is asserted on the basis of diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332.

A partnership, limited liability company, or other unincorporated association is joined as a party. The Court must consider the citizenship of each of the partners, including limited partners, or members. The citizenship of each of the entity's partners or members must therefore be alleged. Carden v. Arkoma Assocs., 494 U.S. 185 (1990); United Steelworkers v. Bouligny, Inc., 382 U.S. 145 (1965); Johnson v. Columbia Props. Anchorage, LP, 437 F.3d 894, 899 (9th Cir. 2006); Rockwell Int'l Credit Corp. v. U.S. Aircraft Ins. Group, 823 F.2d 302 (9th Cir. 1987).

[ X ] Jurisdiction is asserted on the basis of diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332.

Some of the parties are corporations. The complaint is deficient because: [ ] the complaint does not state both the respective state(s) of incorporation and principal place of business. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c). [ X ] the jurisdictional averment by plaintiff(s) is patently insufficient under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c). Plaintiff(s) fail(s) to offer adequate facts to support the assertion that the principal place of business stated in the complaint is the corporate party's principal place of business. Plaintiff(s) must apply the "total activities" test, which takes into account all aspects of the corporation's business, including where its operations are located, where it supervises that business, and where it employs persons and conducts its business. Indus. Tectonics, Inc. v. Aero Alloy, 912 F.2d 1090, 1094 (9th Cir. 1990). This entails (1) determining the location of the majority of the corporation's (a) employees, (b) tangible property, and (c) production activities, and (2) ascertaining where most of the its (a) income is earned, (b) purchases are made, and (c) sales take place. Id. The alternate "nerve center" test may only be applied if plaintiff(s) establish(es) pursuant to the foregoing factors that no state contains a substantial predominance of the corporation's business activities. Id. Under this test, a corporation's principal place of business is where its executive and administrative functions are performed. Id. at 1092.

[ ] Jurisdiction is asserted on the basis of diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332, one or more of the parties is named in a representative capacity, and the citizenship of the represented person is not alleged or appears not to be diverse. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(2).

[] Jurisdiction is asserted on the basis of diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a), but the matter in controversy does not appear to exceed $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs.

[ ] Jurisdiction is asserted on the basis of diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a); the action involves multiple plaintiffs and/or is a class action. The complaint is deficient because it does not state that at least one of the named plaintiffs has a claim exceeding $75,000. Where the action does not implicate a common fund or a joint interest, at least one of the named plaintiffs must meet the amount in controversy requirement. Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Servs., Inc., 125 S.Ct. 2611, 2615 (2005). Where injunctive relief is sought in a multiple plaintiff action, the Ninth Circuit has held that "the amount in controversy requirement cannot be satisfied [merely] by showing ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.