Brooks

DISCUSSION

Brooks asserts subject matter jurisdiction on the basis of diversity. (Dkt. No. 1 ¶ 6.) The Court must therefore consider whether there is diversity of citizenship between the parties and whether the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. It is unclear whether the parties are “citizens of different states.” 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1). A natural person is a citizen of the state in which they reside and intend to remain, otherwise known as their domicile. Kanter v. Warner-Lambert Co., 265 F.3d 853, 857 (9th Cir. 2001). A corporation is considered a citizen of both the state in which it is incorporated and the state where it has its principal place of business. 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (c)(1). Brooks alleges that she is a resident of California and that Geico does business in Maryland. (Dkt. No. 1 ¶¶ 1–2.) She does not state where Geico is incorporated or where it has its principal place of business. Because the Complaint does not allege enough information for the Court to determine which state Geico is a citizen of, it is not clear whether the parties are citizens of different states. It is also unclear whether the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. The demand section…