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.

Princeton Developments, LLC v. Brynee K. Baylor; et al

January 11, 2012

PRINCETON DEVELOPMENTS, LLC, PLAINTIFF,
v.
BRYNEE K. BAYLOR; ET AL.,
DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Howard R. Lloyd United States Magistrate Judge

** E-filed January 11, 2012 **

NOT FOR CITATION

ORDER (1) DISMISSING DEFENDANT SYED ALI ABBAS (2) GRANTING DEFENDANTS FRANK LORENZO AND THE MILAN GROUP'S MOTION TO SET ASIDE DEFAULT; AND (3) THAT THIS CASE BE REASSIGNED TO A DISTRICT JUDGE

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

Plaintiff Princeton Developments, LLC ("Princeton") sued Brynee Baylor, Baylor & Jackson PLLC, The Milan Group, Inc., Frank Lorenzo, Syed Ali Abbas, GPH Holdings, LLC, and Patrick 20 Lewis on September 8, 2011 alleging claims for fraud, breach of contract, bread of fiduciary duty, 21 legal malpractice, and money had and received. Dkt. No. 1 ("Complaint"). Princeton is a California 22 Limited Liability Company. It is undisputed that defendant Syed Ali Abbas is a California resident. 23

See Dkt. 18. All of the remaining defendants are citizens of or entities organized in states other than 24 California. All defendants were personally served with the complaint and summons. See Dkt. Nos. 25 4-8, 12-13. 26

Defendants Brynee Baylor and Syed Ali Abbas have answered the complaint. See Dkt. Nos. 18, 34. The remaining defendants have not timely appeared in this action. On October 26, 2011, 28 plaintiff moved for entry of default against The Milan Group, Frank Lorenzo, Patrick Lewis, and GPH Holdings. Dkt. Nos. 14, 15, 16, 17. The Clerk of Court entered default against those four 2 defendants on October 27. Dkt. Nos. 19, 20, 21, 22. Shortly thereafter, defendants Frank Lorenzo 3 and The Milan Group appeared and moved to set aside the default entered against them. Dkt. No. 4

Upon reviewing the complaint, the court perceived a lack of diversity jurisdiction and raised 6 the issue sua sponte by ordering the plaintiff show cause why the case should not be dismissed for 7 lack of subject matter jurisdiction on January 10. Plaintiff moved to dismiss defendant Syed Ali 8 28. Plaintiff did not oppose the motion. A hearing was held on January 10, 2012 5

Abbas in response, and filed a Show Cause Response asking that this case not be dismissed in light 9 of Abbas's requested dismissal. 10

presentations at hearing, the court hereby finds defendant Abbas is not an indispensable party and DISMISSES him, and GRANTS defendants Frank Lorenzo and The Milan Groups' request to set 13 aside default. In addition, because not all parties have consented to the undersigned's jurisdiction, 14 the court ORDERS the Clerk of the Court to reassign this case to a district judge. 15

A federal district court has original diversity jurisdiction over any civil action in which the 17 amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 and the action is between citizens of different states. 18 U.S.C. § 1332(a). In any case where subject matter jurisdiction depends on § 1332, there must be 19 complete diversity of the parties; that is, all plaintiffs must be of different citizenship than all 20 defendants. Strawbridge v. Curtiss, 7 U.S. 267 (1806). Diversity jurisdiction depends on the parties' 21 status at the commencement of the case (i.e., courts are to look at the citizenship of the parties as of 22 the filing of the complaint). Harris v. Bankers Life and Cas. Co., 425 F.3d 689, 695-696 (9th Cir. 23

Even if no party challenges subject matter jurisdiction, the court has a duty to raise the issue 25 sua sponte whenever it is perceived. Things Remembered, Inc. v. Petrarca, 516 U.S. 124, 132 n.1, 26 116 S. Ct. 494, 133 L. Ed. 2d 461 (1995) (Ginsburg, J., concurring) ("[o]f course, every federal 27 court, whether trial or appellate, is obliged to notice want of subject matter jurisdiction on its own 28

After reviewing the complaint, moving papers, applicable authority and counsel's

I. JURISDICTION

2005).

motion"). On motion or on its own, the court may at any time, on just terms, ...


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.