CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

Case No. 2:24-cv-07415-JLS-JC Date: September 05, 2024 Title: Jerome Christensen et al v. Elutia Inc., et al Present: Honorable JOSEPHINE L. STATON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Lynnie Fahey N/A Deputy Clerk Court Reporter

ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR PLAINTIFF: ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR DEFENDANT:

Not Present Not Present

PROCEEDINGS: (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THIS

CASE SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR LACK OF

SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION

Plaintiffs filed this action on August 30, 2024, asserting claims for negligence, strict products liability, breach of implied warranty of merchantability, and loss of consortium. (See Compl., Doc 1.) Plaintiffs invoke the Court’s diversity jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 1332. (Id. at 5.)

A federal court has diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 if the parties to the action are citizens of different states and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). To invoke federal jurisdiction, the “plaintiff must affirmatively allege [the] essential elements of diversity jurisdiction.” Mann v. City of Tustin, 782 F.2d 790, 794 (9th Cir. 1986).

Here, Plaintiffs allege that they “have been and are residents of the State of California, residing in Santa Maria California.” (Compl. at 2.) The diversity jurisdiction statute, however, speaks of citizenship, not residency. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a); Kanter v. Warner-Lambert Co., 265 F.3d 853, 857 (9th Cir. 2001) (“A person residing in a given state is not necessarily domiciled there, and thus is not necessarily a citizen of that state.”). Thus, Plaintiffs have not adequately alleged their citizenship.

The Court’s exercise of diversity jurisdiction is strictly construed, see Kantor v. Wellesley Galleries, Ltd., 704 F.2d 1088, 1092 (9th Cir. 1983) (citing Shamrock Oil & Gas Corp. v. Sheets, 313 U.S. 100, 108–09 (1941)), and the Court is “obliged to inquire ______________________________________________________________________________

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

Case No. 2:24-cv-07415-JLS-JC Date: September 05, 2024 Title: Jerome Christensen et al v. Elutia Inc., et al sua sponte whenever a doubt arises as to [its] existence …” Mt. Healthy City Sch. Dist. Bd. Of Educ. V. Doyle, 429 U.S. 274, 278 (1977) (citations omitted).

Accordingly, Plaintiffs are ORDERED to show cause, in writing (no longer than five (5) pages), within seven (7) days of the date of this Order, why the Court should not dismiss this action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Failure to timely respond will result in the immediate dismissal of the case.

Initials of Preparer: lfa

______________________________________________________________________________