UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
June 11, 2009
BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION, DOES 1 TO 20
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Honorable Andrew J. Guilford
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Lisa Bredahl Not Present
Proceedings: [IN CHAMBERS] ORDER REQUIRING DEFENDANT TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THIS CASE SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION
Plaintiff Carolyn Ballard ("Plaintiff") sued Defendant Bank of America Corporation ("Defendant") in state court. Defendant timely removed to this Court, alleging that this Court has diversity jurisdiction.
But Defendant fails to allege the state in which Defendant is incorporated. Because Defendant is a corporation, Defendant is required to state both the state of incorporation and its principal place of business. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c). A corporation incorporated in one state with its principal place of business ("PPB") in another state is a citizen of both states, and it can sue or be sued in diversity actions only if no opposing party is a citizen of either state. Bank of Calif. Nat'l Ass'n v. Twin Harbors Lumber Co., 465 F.2d 489, 491-92 (9th Cir. 1972). This acts as an important limitation on federal diversity, decreasing the chances of diversity jurisdiction. William W. Schwarzer, A. Wallace Tashima, and James M. Wagstaffe, FEDERAL CIVIL PROCEDURE BEFORE TRIAL 2:293 (Rutter Group 2007).
Because Defendant fails to allege Defendant's state of incorporation, it is impossible for the Court to tell whether diversity exists. Defendant has not properly alleged diversity jurisdiction.
The Court will dismiss this case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction unless within 10 days of this Order, Defendant files a brief showing why this case should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
© 1992-2009 VersusLaw Inc.