CUENNTITREADL S DTIASTTERSIC DTI SOTFR CICATL ICFOOURRNTIA

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Case No. CV 24-2232-GW-MRWx Date September 13, 2024 Title Jeffrey Davidoff v. Catherine Dail

Present: The Honorable GEORGE H. WU, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Javier Gonzalez None Present Deputy Clerk Court Reporter / Recorder Tape No. Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs: Attorneys Present for Defendants: None Present None Present

PROCEEDINGS: IN CHAMBERS - ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE SUBJECT MATTER

JURISDICTION

This matter is a simple breach of contract action between two individuals. See generally Complaint for Breach of Written Contract, Docket No. 1. Plaintiff Jeffrey Davidoff (“Plaintiff”) has asserted that the Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). See id. ¶ 21. It is clear that more than $75,000 is at stake in the litigation. See id. ¶¶ 6-12, 19, 25-26. However, Section 1332(a) sets more than just an obligatory minimum monetary figure. It also requires diversity of citizenship. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1) (“The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and is between– (1) citizens of different States; . . . .”). This Court is obligated to consider its subject matter jurisdiction in every case before it. See Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 514 (2006). Federal courts possess limited jurisdiction, having such jurisdiction only over matters authorized by the Constitution and Congressional statute. See, e.g., Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). Federal courts operate under the presumption that they do not have jurisdiction, and the party claiming federal jurisdiction bears the responsibility of proving otherwise. See id. (citing Turner v. Bank of N. Am., 4 U.S. (4 Dall.) 8, 11 (1799); McNutt v. Gen Motors Acceptance Corp., 298 U.S. 178, 182-83 (1936)). Presently, Plaintiff has only alleged that he is a resident of California and that defendant Catherine Dail is also a resident of California. See Complaint ¶¶ 14-15. To be clear, residency is not the pertinent standard; it is citizenship, and citizenship means more than just where an individual lives. See, e.g., Kanter v. Warner-Lambert Co., 265 F.3d 853, 857 (9th Cir. 2001). However, even Plaintiff’s current residency-based allegations do not support a conclusion that diversity of citizenship is present here. Both parties reside in California. :

CUENNTITREADL S DTIASTTERSIC DTI SOTFR CICATL ICFOOURRNTIA

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Case No. CV 24-2232-GW-MRWx Date September 13, 2024 Title Jeffrey Davidoff v. Catherine Dail Given this jurisdictional issue, the Court does not have a proper basis now to even consider the presently-pending Motion for an Order Allowing Service of the Summons and Complaint on Defendant by Electronic Mail Plaintiff has set for hearing on September 26, 2024. See Docket No. 13. The Court will give Plaintiff until Friday, September 20, 2024, to explain how this Court actually has subject matter jurisdiction over this matter (and its power to decide the pending motion). Failure to respond by that date will result in the Court dismissing this action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

: