Blackburn v. Asher

5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON MARIAH BLACKBURN, an individual, NO: 2:21-CV-0214-TOR Plaintiff, ORDER DISMISSING CASE FOR 9 LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER v. JURISDICTION MIKE ASHER, an individual; and NATHAN CASTILLO, and individual, 12 Defendants.

14 On July 19, 2021, Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against Defendants alleging this Court has subject matter jurisdiction based on diversity of citizenship under 28 16 U.S.C. § 1332. ECF No. 1. Plaintiff is a citizen of Washington. Id. at 2, ¶ 5.

17 Defendant Mike Asher is domiciled in Arizona. Id. at ¶ 6. However, Defendant Nathan Castillo is domiciled in Washington. Id. at ¶ 7.

19 “It is a fundamental precept that federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction.” Owen Equip. & Erection Co. v. Kroger, 437 U.S. 365, 374 (1978) (limits on federal jurisdiction “must be neither disregarded nor evaded”); see also U.S. v. Bravo-Diaz, 312 F.3d 995, 997 (9th Cir. 2002) (“a court of the United States may not grant relief absent a constitutional or valid statutory grant of jurisdiction”). Thus, it is presumed that a federal court lacks jurisdiction” unless the contrary affirmatively appears.” Stock West, Inc. v. Confederated Tribes, 873 6 F.2d 1221, 1225 (9th Cir. 1989). A court may consider subject matter jurisdiction sua sponte. United Investors Life Ins. Co. v. Waddell & Reed Inc., 360 F.3d 960, 967 (9th Cir. 2004) (the district court had a duty to establish subject matter jurisdiction over the removed action sua sponte, whether the parties raised the issue or not). It is well established that “lack of federal jurisdiction cannot be waived or be overcome by an agreement of the parties.” Id. at 966-67 (citing Mitchell v. Maurer, 293 U.S. 237, 244 (1934); see also Toumajian v. Frailey, 135 13 F.3d 648, 652 (9th Cir. 1998) (“In this action, as in all actions before a federal court, the necessary and constitutional predicate for any decision is a determination that the court has jurisdiction—that is the power—to adjudicate the dispute.”)).

16 Since Strawbridge v. Curtiss, 3 Cranch 267, 2 L.Ed. 435 (1806), the Supreme Court has read the statutory formulation “between . . . citizens of different States” to require complete diversity between all plaintiffs and all defendants. Lincoln Prop. Co. v. Roche, 546 U.S. 81, 89 (2005); see also In re Digimarc Corp. Derivative Litig., 549 F.3d 1223, 1234 (9th Cir. 2008). l This action does not have complete diversity between plaintiff and all 2|| defendants.

3 ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED: 4 1. This action is DISMISSED without prejudice for lack of subject matter 5 jurisdiction.

6 2. The pending motion, ECF No. 4, is DENIED as moot.

7 The District Court Executive is directed to enter this Order, enter judgment 8|| accordingly, provide copies to counsel, and CLOSE the file.

9 DATED October 21, 2021.

10 yf ZA © =< Sliwas. 0. Kes THOMAS O. RICE 12 United States District Judge ORDER DISMISSING CASE FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER