Case 2:22-cv-04863-CJC-RAO Document 8 Filed 07/26/22 Page 1 of 3 Page ID #:40

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 NASIK EL, ) Case No.: CV 22-04863-CJC (RAOx) 12 ) ) 13 ) Plaintiff, ) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY 14 ) THIS CASE SHOULD NOT BE v. ) DISMISSED FOR LACK OF SUBJECT 15 ) MATTER JURISDICTION

RANCH INN MOBILE HOME PARK )

16 )

LLC, KETIH METTER, SHARON )

17 COX, GUY COX, JESUS ISSAGUIRIE, ) and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, ) 18 ) ) 19 ) Defendants. ) 20 )

21 On July 15, 2022, Plaintiff Nasik El fil ed this action alleging numerous state law 22 claims against Defendants. (Dkt. 1 [Complai nt, hereinafter “Compl.”].) In his 23 Complaint, Plaintiff represents that this Court has federal subject matter jurisdiction over 24 this action. (Id.) Federal subject matter juris diction exists when a civil action “aris[es] 25 under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. 26 However, Plaintiff fails to bring his claims pu rsuant to federal law. Instead, Plaintiff’s 27 claims appear to rest on California law, speci fically California’s Fair Employment and 28

-1- Case 2:22-cv-04863-CJC-RAO Document 8 Filed 07/26/22 Page 2 of 3 Page ID #:41

1 Housing Act (“FEHA”) and California’s common law. (See Compl. ¶¶ 34–43 [First 2 Cause of Action – Discrimination on the Basis of Race in Violation of FEHA]; ¶¶ 44–54 3 [Second Cause of Action – Harassment on the Basis of Race in Violation of FEHA]; ¶¶ 4 55–63 [Third Cause of Action– Retaliation for Complaining of Discrimination and 5 Harassment on the Basis of Race in Violation of FEHA]; ¶¶ 64–73 [Fourth Cause of 6 Action – Discrimination on the Basis of Gender in Violation of FEHA]; ¶¶ 74–83 [Fifth 7 Cause of Action – Harassment on the Basis of Gender in Violation of FEHA]; ¶¶ 84–91 8 [Sixth Cause of Action – Retaliation for Complaining of Discrimination and Harassment 9 on the Basis of Gender in Violation of FEHA]; ¶¶ 93–99 [Seventh Cause of Action – 10 Failure to Prevent Harassment, Discrimination, and Retaliation Pursuant to California 11 Law]; ¶¶ 100–106 [Eleventh Cause of Action – Intentional Infliction of Emotional 12 Distress].)1 13 This may be fatal to Plaintiff’s case because there is also no indication that 14 diversity subject matter jurisdiction exists over his case. Diversity jurisdiction exists 15 when there is complete diversity of citizenship between the parties and the amount in 16 controversy exceeds $75,000. Cohn v. Petsmart, Inc., 281 F.3d 837, 839 (9th Cir. 2002). 17 Plaintiff represents in his Complaint, however, that all parties are citizens of California. 18 (See id. ¶ 1 [“Plaintiff Nasik El . . . is a resident of the State of California.”]; ¶ 2 19 [“Defendant Ranch Inn Mobile Home Park LLC [is] . . . a California Corporation[.]”]; ¶ 3 20 [“Defendant Sharon Cox . . . is, and at all tim es mentioned in this Complaint was, a 21 resident of the County of Los Angeles, State of California.”]; ¶ 4 [“Defendant Guy Cox . . 22 . is, and at all times mentioned in this Compla int was, a resident of the County of Los 23 Angeles, State of California.”]; ¶ 5 [“Defenda nt Jesus Issaguirie . . . is, and at all times 24 mentioned in this Complaint was, a resident o f the County of Los Angeles, State of 25 California.”]; ¶ 6 [“Defendant Keith Metter . . . is, and at all times mentioned in this 26

27 1 Plaintiff’s Complaint appears to skip from his Seve nth Cause of Action to his Eleventh Cause of 28 Action. The Court assumes this was inadvertent error and makes clear that his Complaint does not identify an Eighth, Ninth, or Tenth Cause of Action. (See Compl. at 22.)

-2- ase 2:22-cv-04863-CJC-RAO Document 8 Filed 07/26/22 Page 3of3 Page ID#:42

1 || Complaint, was a resident of the County of Los Angeles, State of California.”].) Plaintiff 2 |}also makes no mention of the amount in controversy. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS Plaintiff to show cause in writing by August 2, ° 2022 why this case should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. ° Failure to do so will result in dismissal of this action. Defendants may, but are not required to, file a statement by the same date.

DATED: July 26, 2022 Ko je 10 — i

CORMAC J. CARNEY

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

3.