Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-01084/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-01084-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Breach of Fiduciary Duty

---

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

SAMEER AGRAWAL,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 13cv1084-LAB (WVG)

ORDER REQUIRING

CONFIRMATION OF

DEFENDANTS’ CITIZENSHIP

vs.

JOSÉ L. CORTES, et al.,

Defendant.

The complaint in this action names eleven Defendants, and identifies diversity as the

basis for this Court’s exercise of jurisdiction. It alleges Plaintiff Sameer Agrawal is a citizen

of Ohio, and alleges the citizenship of all Defendants “[u]pon information and belief.”

At this stage of litigation, this is all that is required. In view of the large number of

Defendants, however, the Court considers it prudent to confirm the parties’ citizenship, in

order to avoid expense and delay. If it were to turn out that even one of the Defendants were

non-diverse, this action would need to be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction regardless of how

much the parties and the Court had invested in the way of time, effort, and resources.

Of particular concern are three Defendants alleged to be citizens of foreign countries,

José Cortes (Switzerland), Burkhard Goeschel (Germany), and Jean Lavigne (United

Kingdom). If any of these three Defendants are not in fact citizens of foreign countries but

instead U.S. citizens domiciled abroad, their presence would destroy diversity. See NewmanGreen, Inc. v. Alfonzo-Larrain, 490 U.S. 826, 828–29 (1989) (U.S. citizens domiciled abroad

- 1 - 13cv1084

Case 3:13-cv-01084-BEN-RBB Document 13 Filed 05/10/13 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

are neither citizens of a state nor citizens or subjects of a foreign state, and are therefore not

proper parties to a diversity action in federal court). 

If any party becomes aware of facts that would destroy diversity or even draw diversity

jurisdiction into question, they must promptly file a notice so stating, so that the Court can

address any problem at the earliest opportunity. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: May 9, 2013

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS

United States District Judge

- 2 - 13cv1084

Case 3:13-cv-01084-BEN-RBB Document 13 Filed 05/10/13 Page 2 of 2