IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

JAMES SHARP, ALTON ROSSMAN, DAVID HACKETT, and VISION Case No. 6:25-cv-00839-MC WELLNESS, INC., an Oregon corporation, ORDER Plaintiffs, v. ALBERT O. EDWARDS, JUNNAREE EDWARDS, STERLING VISION, P.C., an Oregon professional corporation, and MARGIN MANAGEMENT, P.C., an Oregon professional corporation, Defendants.

MCSHANE, Judge: This case is DISMISSED because the Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction. Courts “have an independent obligation to determine whether subject-matter jurisdiction exists, even in the absence of achallenge from any party.” Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp. ,

(2006) (citation omitted). Plaintiffs assert that this Court has subject-matter jurisdiction pursuant to

. Am. Compl. 4 2, ECF No. 12. Diversity jurisdiction requires complete diversity of

1 - ORDER

citizenship between the parties and that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. See Strawbridge v. Curtiss,

(1806); § 1332(a). For purposes of determining diversity jurisdiction, natural persons are citizens of the state in which they are domiciled—i.e., the state in which they reside with the intention to remain or intention to return. Adams v. West Marine Products, Inc.,

(9th Cir. 2020). A corporation is a citizen of the state in which

it is incorporated, and the state in which it has its principal place of business. § 1332(c); Hertz Corp. v. Friend,

, 90–95 (2010). Here, Plaintiffs allege that each party to this action resides in Oregon, is incorporated in Oregon, or has its principal place of business in Oregon. See Am. Compl. ¶¶ 4–10. Accordingly, the Court’s jurisdictional requirements are not satisfied here. “If the court determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). The case is DISMISSED. All pending motions are denied as moot. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED this 7th day of November 2025.

_______/s/ Michael McShane ________ Michael McShane United States District Judge

2 – ORDER