The opinion of the court was delivered by: Honorable John F. Walter, United States District Judge
ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR PLAINTIFFS: None None Present
ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR DEFENDANTS: None
PROCEEDINGS (IN CHAMBERS): ORDER DISMISSING ACTION FOR LACK OF
SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION;
ORDER DENYING AS MOOT DEFENDANTS ZOLL MEDICAL CORPORATION AND ZOLL LIFECOR CORPORATION'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS GROUNDS [filed 10/6/2011; Docket No. 73]
On April 29, 2011, Plaintiff Cardiac Science Corporation ("Plaintiff") filed a Complaint in this Court against Defendants LifeCor, Inc. and Zoll Medical Corporation, alleging that this Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). On July 25, 2011, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint that added Zoll LifeCor Corporation as a defendant. In Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint, Plaintiff also alleges that this Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a).
Diversity jurisdiction founded under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) requires that (1) all plaintiffs be of different citizenship than all defendants, and (2) the amount in controversy exceed $75,000. For the purposes of diversity jurisdiction, a corporation is a citizen of any state where it is incorporated and of the state where it has its principal place of business. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c); see also Indus. Tectonics, Inc. v. Aero Alloy, 912 F.2d 1090, 1092 (9th Cir. 1990).
Although the Court had subject matter jurisdiction at the time Plaintiff filed its original Complaint, the Court no longer has subject matter jurisdiction over this action due to the addition of Zoll LifeCor Corporation as a defendant. Both Plaintiff and Defendant Zoll LifeCor Corporation are incorporated in Delaware, and thus are both citizens of Delaware. See First Amended Complaint at ¶¶ 1,3; Zoll Medical Corporation and Zoll LifeCor Corporation's Answer to Plaintiff's Amended Complaint at ¶ 3. Although diversity is generally determined as of the time of filing of the complaint, "[i]n the case of an amended complaint which joins new parties, . . . the diversity must exist at the time of the amendment." China Basin Properties, Ltd. v. Allendale Mutual Ins. Co., 818 F. Supp. 1301, 1303 (N.D. Cal. 1992) (citing Lewis v. Lewis, 358 F.2d 495, 502 (9th Cir. 1966)).
Accordingly, because the parties in the First Amended Complaint are not completely diverse, the Court lacks subject matter ...