Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

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

Frank Dufour v. Robert Allen

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


October 31, 2011

FRANK DUFOUR
v.
ROBERT ALLEN, ET AL.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: The Honorable Christina A. Snyder, U.S. District Judge

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Title

Present: The Honorable CHRISTINA A. SNYDER, U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

RITA SANCHEZ N/A N/A

Deputy Clerk Court Reporter / Recorder Tape No.

Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs: Attorneys Present for Defendants:

N/A N/A

Proceedings: (In Chambers:) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: WHY ACTION SHOULD NOT BE REMANDED FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION

INTRODUCTION

On September 28, 2011, plaintiff Frank Dufour filed a complaint in this Court against Robert Allen ("Allen"); Enlightened Wealth Institute L.C. ("EWI"); Prosper, Inc. ("Prosper"); Green Planet f/k/a Freedom Mortgage ("Green Planet"); PNC BANK f/k/a National City ("PNC"); Opteum ("Opteum"); Midland Mortgage Company ("Midland"); Aurora Loan Services ("Aurora"); Sherson Lehman ("Sherson"); Charlie Payne ("Payne"); Trent Staggs ("Staggs") and DOES 1--10 (collectively, "defendants") for fraud and misrepresentation; negligence; breach of contract; recession with constructive trust; and declaratory relief. Plaintiff contends this Court has jurisdiction over the instant action based on diversity pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332.

DISCUSSION

Jurisdiction founded on diversity requires that parties be in complete diversity and the amount in controversy exceed $75,000. Matheson v. Progressive Specialty Ins. Co., 319 F.3d 1089, 1090 (9th Cir. 2003); see 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1) ("[T]he district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions where the matter of controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and is between . . . citizens of different States . . ."). Federal courts have jurisdiction only where there is complete diversity: the plaintiff's citizenship must be diverse from that of each named defendant. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332(a), 1332(c)(1).

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Case No. CV 11-8054 CAS (SSx)

Date October 31, 2011

Title

FRANK DUFOUR v. ROBERT ALLEN, ET AL.

Remand may be ordered either for lack of subject matter jurisdiction or for any defect in removal procedure. See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).

Here, the complaint fails to state the domicile of every named defendant and, thus, fails to demonstrate complete diversity. See generally, complaint; 28 U.S.C. § 1332.

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, plaintiff is hereby ORDERED to SHOW CAUSE within twenty (20) days why the instant action should not be remanded for lack of complete diversity.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Initials of Preparer

20111031

© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

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