Joao Henriques v. Tine Nilsen

I. Factual and Procedural Background

Plaintiffs, who were residential tenants of property located in Los Angeles, filed the original complaint on May 16, 2024, alleging breach of contract. Dkt. 1. Plaintiffs listed an address in Australia. Dkt. 1 at 1. On May 31, 2024, this Court ordered Plaintiffs to show cause, no later than June 10, 2024, as to why the case should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Dkt. 11. Plaintiffs responded on June 11, 2024, stating that the action was filed based on diversity jurisdiction because “Plaintiffs are in Australia and Defendants are in California, and the amount in dispute is $365,000” and that “[t]here is no member of Plaintiffs who is still in California.” Dkt. 13. On June 11, 2024, Plaintiffs also filed a first amended complaint, which again listed an address in Australia but did not provide any other information on citizenship or subject matter jurisdiction. Dkt. 14. IL. Legal Standard Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and have subject matter jurisdiction only where authorized by the Constitution and Congress. See Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). Federal courts have…