CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

Case No. LA CV20-07216 JAK (Ex) Date August 19, 2020

Title Protective Insurance Company et al. v. Iriana Insurance Services, Inc, et al.

Present: The Honorable JOHN A. KRONSTADT, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Cheryl Wynn Not Reported

Deputy Clerk Court Reporter / Recorder

Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs: Attorneys Present for Defendants:

Not Present Not Present

Proceedings: (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION

On August 11, 2020, Protective Insurance Company and Express Messenger Systems, Inc. (“Plaintiffs”), which are separate parties, brought this action seeking reimbursement for amounts paid to resolve a prior action. The complaint (“Complaint” (Dkt. 1)), which asserts seven causes of action under California law, alleges that there is diversity jurisdiction.

. Diversity jurisdiction requires that “the citizenship of each plaintiff is different from that of each defendant.” Hunter v. Philip Morris USA,

(9th Cir. 2009). It also requires that the amount in controversy is greater than $75,000.

.

As a court of limited jurisdiction, see Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am.,

(1994), a district court must determine the issue of subject-matter jurisdiction before reaching the merits of a case. See Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t ,

(1998). “When a requirement goes to subject-matter jurisdiction, courts are obligated to consider sua sponte issues that the parties have disclaimed or have not presented. Subject-matter jurisdiction can never be waived or forfeited.” Gonzalez v. Thaler,

(2012) (internal citations omitted). If, at any time, a court determines that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the action must be dismissed. Fed R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3).

The Complaint sufficiently alleges that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. Compl. ¶ 2. However, it is not sufficient as to whether there is complete diversity between Plaintiffs and the named defendants. It is alleged that Express Messenger Systems, Inc. (“Express Messenger”) is incorporated under the laws of Delaware, whose principal place of business is in Arizona. Compl. ¶ 5. Thus, it is a citizen of both Delaware and Arizona. It is alleged that Protective Insurance Company is incorporated under the laws of Indiana, and that its principal place of business is there. Compl. ¶ 4. Thus, it is a citizen of Indiana. The question then is whether any of the defendants is a citizen of Delaware, Arizona or Indiana.

The Complaint alleges that National General Insurance Company (“National General”), which is a defendant, is incorporated under the laws of Delaware, with its principal place of business in North Carolina. Compl. ¶ 9. Thus, the Complaint alleges that National General, like Express Messenger, is a CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

Case No. LA CV20-07216 JAK (Ex) Date August 19, 2020

Title Protective Insurance Company et al. v. Iriana Insurance Services, Inc, et al.

In light of the foregoing, to facilitate the determination of whether there is subject matter jurisdiction over this action, on or before September 2, 2020, Plaintiffs are Ordered to Show Cause as to whether there is subject matter jurisdiction in this action. By that date, Plaintiffs shall submit a memorandum, not to exceed five pages, together with supporting evidence, with respect to that issue. Based on a review of that response, the Court will determine whether any further briefing or a hearing will be necessary to determine whether there is jurisdiction.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

:

Initials of Preparer cw