United States District Court, N.D. California
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS RE:
DKT. NO. 12
KANDIS
WESTMORE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
On July
15, 2019, Plaintiff Joyce Mullan filed the instant case
against Defendant Chance Daniels, alleging claims for
defamation. (Compl., Dkt. No. 1.) Pending before the Court is
Defendant's motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction and failure to state a claim. (Def.'s Mot.
to Dismiss, Dkt. No. 12.) The Court deems the matter suitable
for disposition without a hearing and VACATES the December
19, 2019 hearing. Having reviewed the parties' filings
and the relevant legal authority, the Court GRANTS
Defendant's motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction.
I.BACKGROUND
Plaintiff
is a resident of California, and has been “a nationally
recognized and respected breeder of Standard Schnauzers
producing show puppies and dogs” for the past eleven
years. (Compl. ¶¶ 1, 5.) Defendant is a resident of
Washington and/or Colorado. (Compl. ¶ 2.) Plaintiff
alleges that in July 2018, Defendant knowingly and willfully
published false and libelous statements on a website
specifically directed to individuals involved in the
breeding, training, showing, and purchases of Standard
Schnauzers. (Compl. ¶ 5.) Specifically, Defendant posted
statements that Plaintiff was a “disreputable breeder,
” who had attempted to steal Defendant's dog and
was now involved in litigation against Defendant. (Compl.
¶ 6.)
Based
on this posting, Plaintiff filed the instant case, alleging
claims for: (1) defamation, (2) trade libel, (3) intentional
infliction of emotional distress, and (4) negligent
infliction of emotional distress. (Compl. at 3-6.) Plaintiff
asserts jurisdiction based on diversity jurisdiction. (Compl.
¶ 3.) On November 5, 2019, Defendant filed a motion to
dismiss. On November 19, 2019, Plaintiff filed her
opposition. (Pl.'s Opp'n, Dkt. No. 15.) On November
26, 2019, Defendant filed his reply. (Def.'s Reply, Dkt.
No. 16.)
II.DISCUSSION
Defendant
seeks dismissal based on lack of jurisdiction and failure to
state a claim. The Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to
plead facts necessary for diversity jurisdiction, and
dismisses the case on that ground.
Federal
courts exercise limited jurisdiction. A “federal court
is presumed to lack jurisdiction in a particular case unless
the contrary affirmatively appears.” Stock W., Inc.
v. Confederated Tribes, 873 F.2d 1221, 1225 (9th Cir.
1989) (citation omitted). District courts also have original
jurisdiction over all civil actions “where the matter
in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75, 000,
exclusive of interests and costs, and is between . . .
citizens of different States.” 28 U.S.C. §
1332(a). When federal subject matter jurisdiction is
predicated on diversity of citizenship, complete diversity
must exist between the opposing parties. Owen Equip.
& Erection Co. v. Kroger, 437 U.S. 365, 373-74
(1978).
Here,
Plaintiff has only pled that she is “a citizen of the
United States and a resident of the State of California,
” and that Defendant “was a resident of [the]
State of Washington and/or the State of Colorado” at
all times relevant to this case. (Compl. ¶¶ 1, 2.)
The Ninth Circuit has been clear, however, that residency
alone in insufficient to demonstrate citizenship. Instead,
“[t]he natural person's state citizenship is . . .
determined by her state of domicile, not her state of
residence. A person's domicile is her permanent home,
where she resides with the intention to remain or to which
she intends to return.” Kanter v. Warner-Lambert
Co., 265 F.3d 853, 857 (9th Cir. 2001). Thus, “[a]
person residing in a given state is not necessarily domiciled
there, and thus is not necessarily a citizen of that
state.” Id.; see also Ehrman v. Cox
Commc'ns, Inc., 932 F.3d 1223, 1227 (9th Cir. 2019)
(“residency is not equivalent to citizenship”).
Further, diversity jurisdiction is determined “as of
the time the complaint is filed . . . .” Strotek
Corp. v. Air Transp. Ass'n of Am., 300 F.3d 1129,
1131 (9th Cir. 2002); see also Siloam Springs Hotel, LLC
v. Century Sur. Co., 781 F.3d 1233, 1239 (10th Cir.
2015) (“it is clear the relevant time period for
determining the existence of complete diversity is the time
of the filing of the complaint”) (citing Grupo
Dataflux v. Atlas Glob. Grp., 541 U.S. 567, 570-72
(2004)). Because Plaintiff has pled only the residency of the
parties, and not their citizenship at the time the
complaint was filed, Plaintiff has failed to sufficiently
plead diversity jurisdiction.[1] Thus, dismissal is required for
lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Because
the Court finds that it lacks jurisdiction over the case, the
Court does not review Defendant's substantive arguments
that Plaintiff failed to state a claim. The Court, however,
notes that in opposing any future motions, Plaintiff should
be prepared to cite to case authority with facts comparable
to the instant case.[2]
III.
CONCLUSION
For the
reasons stated above, the Court GRANTS Defendant's motion
to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. Plaintiff has thirty
days from the date of this order to file an amended complaint
that adequately alleges citizenship.
IT IS
...