1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 EDITH GOMEZ, et al. Case No.: 19cv2028-LAB (JLB)

12 Plaintiffs, ORDER OF DISMISSAL 13 v. WITHOUT PREJUDICE

14 LAURIE HERNANDEZ 15 Defendant. 16 17 After Plaintiffs filed their complaint, the Court issued an order to show cause 18 why this action should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and 19 for improper venue. The claims stem from a car accident that occurred in Riverside 20 County. 21 Plaintiffs have now amended their complaint. Although they cite the U.S. 22 Constitution, their claims do not arise under it or under any federal law and they 23 have not argued that the Court can exercise federal question jurisdiction over this 24 action. Rather, the Amended Complaint relies on alienage jurisdiction. (Am. 25 Compl. at 1:26–2:3.) 26 Plaintiffs allege that they are Mexican citizens, but have failed to allege 27 Defendant’s citizenship. Although the Court’s order cited Rainero v. Archon Corp., 28

(9th Cir. 2016) for the principle that alleging residence is not 1 |}enough to plead citizenship, Plaintiffs have still not pled Hernandez’s state or 2 ||national citizenship. Instead, they continue to allege only that she is a resident of 3 ||California. (ld. at 2:1-3.) Plaintiffs therefore have not met their burden of 4 ||establishing subject matter jurisdiction. See NewGen, LLC v. Safe Cig, LLC, 840 5 606, 613-14 (9th Cir. 2016). See also Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of 6 ||Am.,

(1994) (federal jurisdiction is presumed to be lacking, until 7 ||the party invoking the court’s jurisdiction establishes otherwise). 8 The Court also pointed out that venue appeared to be improper here. See 9 || Costlow v. Weeks,

, 1488 (9th Cir. 1988) (district court can raise 10 ||issue of defective venue sua sponte, as long as it has not been waived). The 11 |/accident occurred in the Central District of California, and nothing in the complaint 12 ||connects either the cause of action or any of the parties with this District. The Court 13 ||can, and does, raise rely on defective venue as an alternative basis for dismissal. 14 || See id. at 1488 (affirming dismissal of action for improper venue). 15 Because Plaintiffs have failed to meet their burden to plead facts establishing 16 ||subject matter jurisdiction, and because venue is improper in this District, this 17 ||action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 18 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 20 ||Dated: November 4, 2019 21 / ot 4 ye 22 Honorable Larry Alan Burns 23 Chief United States District Judge 24 25 26 27 28