Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-06105/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-06105-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CONSUMER OPINION LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

ZCS, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 16-cv-06105-SI 

ORDER DISMISSING CASE WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE

Re: Dkt. No. 13

Defendant Lapham’s motion to dismiss the complaint is scheduled for a hearing on 

February 24, 2017. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), the Court determines that this matter is 

appropriate for resolution without oral argument, and VACATES the hearing. For the reasons set 

forth below, the Court DISMISSES this case without prejudice.

On October 21, 2016, plaintiff filed this complaint against numerous defendants, including 

Mark Lapham as well as “Doe corporations.” The complaint alleges that the basis for jurisdiction 

is diversity jurisdiction. Compl. ¶ 32.

On December 26, 2016, defendant Lapham filed a motion to dismiss contending that the 

complaint should be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, lack of standing, and failure 

to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Defendant’s motion argues, inter alia, that there 

is no diversity jurisdiction because the inclusion of “Doe corporations” defeats diversity. Dkt. No. 

13 at 3 (citing Garter-Bare Co. v. Munsingwear, Inc., 650 F.2d 975, 981 (9th Cir. 1980) (holding 

district court lacked jurisdiction over state law claim brought against identified diverse defendant 

and unidentified “Doe” defendants), and Ningbo Yonglin Light Indus. Co., Ltd. v. Wham-O, Inc., 

C 09-1496 MMC, 2009 WL 2169707, at *1 (N.D. Cal. July 17, 2009) (“the Court at the outset

notes that the inclusion of a ‘Doe’ defendant ‘destroys’ diversity jurisdiction”).

Case 3:16-cv-06105-SI Document 16 Filed 01/13/17 Page 1 of 2
2

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

Northern District of California

On January 6, 2017, plaintiff filed a “limited opposition” to defendant’s motion. Plaintiff 

states that it has “uncovered additional information related to one of the Doe Defendant entities 

that, once named, will defeat diversity” and that “inclusion of this Defendant will thus eliminate 

this Court’s subject-matter jurisdiction over this case.” Dkt. No. 15 at 1:25-2:2. Plaintiff also 

states that “[o]nce diversity is defeated, Opinion plans to bring its claims against Defendants in 

state court.” Id. at 2:9-10. 

In light of the above, the Court finds that it does not have jurisdiction over this case, and 

accordingly this case is DISMISSED without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 13, 2017 ______________________________________

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:16-cv-06105-SI Document 16 Filed 01/13/17 Page 2 of 2