Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-01610/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-01610-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 362
Nature of Suit: Medical Malpractice
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question: Medical Malpractice

---

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

DEANNE THOMAS,

Plaintiff,

v.

FAMILY HEALTHCARE NETWORK, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:23-cv-01610-KES-SAB

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: SUBJECT 

MATTER JURISDICTION 

SEVEN-DAY DEADLINE

On November 15, 2023, Plaintiff, a California resident, filed this negligence action 

against (1) Defendant Family Healthcare Network, a California corporation with its principal 

place of business in California, and (2) Narwhals Mating, M.D., a California resident. (ECF No. 

1.) Neither Defendant has responded to the complaint. On March 12, 2024, Plaintiff requested 

entry of default against both Defendants (ECF No. 12), which the clerk entered on March 13, 

2024 (ECF No. 13). On April 12, 2024, Plaintiff filed a motion for default judgment against 

both Defendants. (ECF No. 16.)

Upon review of Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment, this Court has concerns 

regarding its subject matter jurisdiction. See Valdez v. Allstate Ins. Co., 372 F.3d 1115, 1116 

(9th Cir. 2004) (noting federal courts are “obligated to consider sua sponte whether [they] have 

subject matter jurisdiction”). Both Plaintiff’s complaint and motion for default judgment allege 

that the basis for jurisdiction is diversity jurisdiction under 28 § U.S.C. § 1332. (ECF No. 1 at 3; 

Case 1:23-cv-01610-KES-SAB Document 19 Filed 04/23/24 Page 1 of 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

2

ECF No. 16 at 5.) A district court has jurisdiction over a case if the suit is between citizens of a 

state and citizens of a foreign state, and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, exclusive of 

interest and costs. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(2). Plaintiff argues in her motion for default judgment 

that “Defendants are citizens of California. Thus, the parties are diverse.” (ECF No. 16 at 5

(citations omitted).) The motion fails to address Plaintiff’s state of citizenship. However, 

Plaintiff’s allegation in her complaint that she is also a citizen of California means this action 

does not satisfy the diversity of citizenship requirement for diversity jurisdiction. (See ECF No. 

1 at 3.) The Court shall therefore require Plaintiff to show cause as to how the Court has subject 

matter jurisdiction over this action. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff show cause, in writing, within 

seven (7) days of entry of this order why the Court should not recommend Plaintiff’s case be 

dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Failure to show cause in writing will result in 

recommendation of dismissal of this action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 23, 2024 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:23-cv-01610-KES-SAB Document 19 Filed 04/23/24 Page 2 of 2