Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-02283/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-02283-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 380
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Property Damage
Cause of Action: 

---

1

17cv2283-GPC(BLM)

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GPX CAPITAL, LLC (a subsidiary of 

GXP CDMO, Inc., formerly Bioserv 

Corporation), a Nevada limited liability 

company,

Plaintiff,

v.

ARGONAUT EMS, a California sole 

proprietorship owned by Wayne 

Woodard; ARGONAUT 

MANUFACTURING SERVICES, INC., 

a Delaware corporation; WAYNE 

WOODARD, an individual; 

TELEGRAPH HILL PARTNERS III, 

L.P., a Delaware investment limited 

partnership, and TELEGRAPH HILL 

PARTNERS III INVESTMENT 

MANAGEMENT, LLC, a Delaware 

limited liability company alleged to be the 

general partner of Telegraph Hill Partners 

III, L.P.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 17cv2283-GPC(BLM)

ORDER SUA SPONTE DISMISSING 

CASE FOR LACK OF SUBJECT 

MATTER JURISDICTION

Case 3:17-cv-02283-GPC-BLM Document 48 Filed 07/23/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 2
2

17cv2283-GPC(BLM)

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

On July 11, 2018, the Court issued an order to show cause why the case should not 

be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. (Dkt. No. 45.) On July 20, 2018, 

Plaintiff filed a response agreeing with the Court’s analysis and does not object to the 

dismissal of this case without prejudice. (Dkt. No. 47.) 

As stated in the order to show cause, the federal court is one of limited jurisdiction, 

Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of America, 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994), and the Court 

is constitutionally required to raise issues related to federal subject matter jurisdiction, 

and may do so sua sponte. Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env=t, 523 U.S. 83, 93B94 

(1998); see Nevada v. Bank of America Corp., 672 F.3d 661, 673 (9th Cir. 2012) (it is 

well established that “a court may raise the question of subject matter jurisdiction, sua 

sponte, at any time during the pendency of the action, even on appeal.”) “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). 

Here, Plaintiff agrees there is no basis for subject matter jurisdiction based on 

complete diversity of the parties as alleged in the Complaint. Accordingly, the Court sua 

sponte DISMISSES without prejudice the complaint for lack of subject matter 

jurisdiction. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 23, 2018

Case 3:17-cv-02283-GPC-BLM Document 48 Filed 07/23/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2