The opinion of the court was delivered by: Honorable Josephine Staton Tucker, United States District Judge
Present: Honorable JOSEPHINE STATON TUCKER, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Terry Guerrero N/A Deputy Clerk Court Reporter ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR PLAINTIFF: ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR DEFENDANT: Not Present Not Present PROCEEDINGS: (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO SHOW CAUSE RE SUBJECT-MATTER JURISDICTION
Plaintiffs Michael I. Smith and Shirley B. Smith filed this case in federal court on the basis of diversity jurisdiction. (Compl. at 2, Doc. 1.) Plaintiffs allege that they are both citizens of California (see Compl. ¶¶ 1-2), but they fail to allege the citizenship of ReconTrust Company, N.A. Plaintiffs allege that Defendant ReconTrust has "corporate offices" in Texas. However, Plaintiffs do not allege ReconTrust's principal place of business. (Compl. ¶ 4.) Lincoln Prop. Co. v. Roche, 546 U.S. 81, 94 (2005) ("[a] corporation shall be deemed to be a citizen of any State by which it has been incorporated and of the State where it has its principal place of business") (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1)).
Because "diversity of citizenship [exists only when] there is complete diversity between all named plaintiffs and all defendants," Lincoln Prop. Co., 546 U.S. at 84, the Court lacks sufficient information to determine whether diversity exists between parties.
Moreover, in at least one other case in this state, ReconTrust has conceded that it is a citizen of California. See Delgado v. Bank of Am. Corp., No. 1:09CV01638 AWI DLB, 2009 WL 4163525, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 23, 2009) ("Defendants admit that ReconTrust Co., N.A. is a citizen of California").
Accordingly, Plaintiffs are ordered to show cause no later than May 22, 2013, why this case should not be dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Failure to timely respond will result in immediate dismissal of this action.
© 1992-2013 VersusLaw ...