Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01005/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01005-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question: Personal Injury

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMES E. HALL,

Plaintiff,

v.

REGAL ENTERTAINMENT GROUP, 

 Defendant.

Case No. 1:15-cv-01005-EPG

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: SUBJECT 

MATTER JURISDICTION

On July 2, 2015, Plaintiff James Hall (“Plaintiff”) filed a Complaint. (ECF No. 1.) The 

Complaint alleged a single claim for negligence on the part of Defendant Regal Entertainment 

Group (“Defendant”) and asserted that the Court had diversity jurisdiction over the matter under 

28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) because Plaintiff is a resident of Washington and Defendant is a business 

entity headquartered in Tennessee. The Complaint does not contain any allegations concerning 

the specific amount in controversy in Plaintiff’s claim. On October 27, 2015, the Court conducted 

an Initial Scheduling Conference. Counsel for both parties appeared telephonically. The parties 

expressed uncertainty as to the amount in controversy in the present action.

“Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3) provides that a court may raise the question of 

subject matter jurisdiction, sua sponte, at any time during the pendency of the action, even on 

Case 1:15-cv-01005-EPG Document 22 Filed 10/28/15 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

appeal.” Snell v. Cleveland, Inc., 316 F.3d 822, 826 (9th Cir. 2002), citing Summers v. Interstate 

Tractor & Equip. Co., 466 F.2d 42, 49-50 (9th Cir. 1972). The “party invoking the federal court’s 

jurisdiction has the burden of proving the actual existence of subject matter jurisdiction.” 

Thompson v. McCombe, 99 F.3d 352, 353 (9th Cir. 1996), citing Trentacosta v. Frontier Pac. 

Aircraft Indus., Inc., 813 F.2d 1553, 1559 (9th Cir. 1987). 

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a), a federal court’s subject matter jurisdiction only arises “where 

the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000 . . . and is between . . . (1) citizens 

of different States . . .” Plaintiff’s Complaint does not allege that the matter in controversy 

exceeds the sum or value of $75,000. And although it alleges that Plaintiff is a resident of 

Washington, the “diversity jurisdiction statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1332, speaks of citizenship, not of 

residency.” Kanter v. Warner-Lambert Co., 265 F.3d 853, 857 (9th Cir. 2001), citing NewmanGreen, Inc. v. Alfonzo-Larrain, 490 U.S. 826, 828 (1989). Based on the facts alleged in the 

Complaint, the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this case.

ORDER

Accordingly, Plaintiff James Hall is ORDERED to appear on December 2, 2015, at 9:30 

a.m., in Courtroom 10, to show cause why his case should not be dismissed for lack of subject 

matter jurisdiction. Plaintiff shall file, no later than November 25, 2015, either: (1) an amended 

complaint properly alleging the basis of this Court’s subject matter jurisdiction; or (2) a response 

to the Order to Show Cause otherwise demonstrating the basis for the Court’s subject matter 

jurisdiction. The Court has set another scheduling conference at this same date and time. 

\\

\\

\\

\\

Case 1:15-cv-01005-EPG Document 22 Filed 10/28/15 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

Accordingly, Plaintiff shall also appear at the scheduling conference that is set for 

December 2, 2015, at 9:30 a.m., in Courtroom 10. Plaintiff is cautioned that failure to respond 

to this Order to Show Cause may result in the dismissal of this action.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 28, 2015 /s/

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-01005-EPG Document 22 Filed 10/28/15 Page 3 of 3