1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 TIFFANY MARIE JOHNSON ESTATE, Case No.: 23-cv-802-JES-DEB

12 Plaintiff, ORDER DISMISSING CASE FOR 13 v. LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION 14 DEBORAH ANNE CUMBA, 15 Defendant. 16 17 On May 3, 2023, Plaintiff Tiffany Marie Johnson Estate, proceeding pro se, filed 18 the instant complaint against Defendant Deborah Anne Cumba. ECF No. 1. In the 19 complaint, Plaintiff alleges that she has a state court case (22DF003914C), purportedly 20 presided over by Defendant. Id. at 2. Plaintiff states that she furnished a Certified 21 International Promissory Note to “satisfy the alleged debt” for the state court case, but 22 Defendant “refused to perform fiduciary duty for full settlement/setoff and closure of the 23 case” based on this promissory note. Id. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant entered a 24 contempt of court judgment against her on April 27, 2023. Id. Plaintiff seeks 25 “compensation of damages for breach of fiduciary duties,” requests a default judgment 26 order and closure of her state court case. Id. at 3. 27 On May 11, 2023, the Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause on or before May 31, 28 2023, why the case should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. ECF 1 No. 5. The Court cautioned that failure to timely respond to the Order to Show Cause 2 would result in dismissal of the action. Id. To date, Plaintiff has not filed a response. 3 Instead, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint (“AC”). 4 In Plaintiff’s AC, Plaintiff appears to assert that this Court has diversity 5 jurisdiction pursuant to

. Plaintiff mentions that the amount in 6 controversy is more than $75,000 but fails to address the citizenship of each of the 7 parties. Complete diversity between plaintiffs and defendants is required under this 8 statute. Hunter v. Philip Morris USA,

(9th Cir. 2009). An individual 9 is deemed to be a citizen of the state in which he or she is domiciled. Kanter v. Warner- 10 Lambert Co.,

(9th Cir. 2001). The AC fails to address whether there is 11 complete diversity between plaintiff and defendant. Therefore, the Court lacks diversity 12 jurisdiction. 13 Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. Gunn v. Minton,

, 256 14 (2013). A federal court is constitutionally required to revise issues of federal subject 15 matter jurisdiction, sua sponte, if necessary, and must satisfy itself of jurisdiction before 16 proceeding to the merits of a case. Arraign v. Y&H Corp.,

(2006); 17 Ruhrgas AG v. Marathon Oil Co.,

, 577 (1999). “A plaintiff suing in a 18 federal court must show in his pleading, affirmatively and distinctly, the existence of 19 whatever is essential to federal jurisdiction, and, if he does not do so, the court, on having 20 the defect called to its attention or on discovering the same, must dismiss the case, unless 21 the defect be corrected by amendment.” Tosco Corp. v. Communities for a Better Env’t, 22

(9th Cir. 2001) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted), 23 abrogated on other grounds by Hertz Corp. v. Friend,

(2010). 24 Plaintiff has failed to address the Court’s concerns regarding a lack of subject 25 matter jurisdiction in this case. Plaintiff did not respond to the Court in writing 26 addressing this issue, as she was ordered to do so, nor did the AC address the lack of 27 subject matter jurisdiction. Therefore, it is apparent the Court lacks subject matter 28 jurisdiction in this matter. l Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES the case without prejudice for lack of subject 2 || matter jurisdiction. The Clerk is directed to close the case. 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 ; Dated: June 6, 2023 Sin 4, 6 Honorable James E. Simmons, Ir 7 Unites States District Judge 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28