UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
June 14, 2010
KULDIP SAHOTA, AKA ROBIN SAHOTA
The opinion of the court was delivered by: The Honorable Jacqueline H. Nguyen
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Alicia Mamer Not Reported
Proceedings: ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION (In Chambers)
This case was filed in District Court on July 15, 2009, on the basis of diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 and an amount in controversy exceeding $75,000. Under Title 28 U.S.C. § 1332, the district court shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions where the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 and the matter is between "citizens of a State and citizens or subjects of a foreign state...." 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(2). However, "[f]or the purposes of this section  . . ., an alien admitted to the United States for permanent residence shall be deemed a citizen of the State in which such alien is domiciled." 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (emphasis added.) The legislative history reveals that the purpose for this amendment by Congress was to eliminate mandatory federal jurisdiction in suits between a citizen of State A and an alien permanently residing in State A. See Aria v. Tachibana, 778 F.Supp. 1535, 1540 (D. Hawaii 1991) and 15 James Wm. Moore, Moore's Federal Practice, § 102.78 (3d ed. 2010).
The complaint in this case specifically alleges that Plaintiff moved to the United States with her family from the country of Fiji in 2000. The Complaint states that Plaintiff resided in Kern County, California, in 2003, when the alleged actions by Defendant that gave rise to this lawsuit took place. The Complaint also states that Defendant is a citizen of the State of California. Based on the face of the Complaint, it appears that there is no diversity among the parties since Plaintiff, by virtue of her domicile, and Defendant, are both citizens of the State of California.
Therefore, Plaintiff is ordered to show cause, in writing why this case should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction by no later than June 25, 2010. Failure to do so will result in dismissal of this action. The matter will stand submitted once the Court receives Plaintiff's Response, and a hearing will be set if deemed necessary by the Court.
It is further ordered that the status conference currently set on June 21, 2010, is vacated.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2010 VersusLaw Inc.