Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-02200/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-02200-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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 Californi

a

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

PETER BENNETT, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

ANSEL D. KINNEY, et al., 

Defendants, 

Case No. 15-cv-02200-JSW 

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 

DISMISS AND ADDRESSING 

COUNTERCLAIMS; AND VACATING 

CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE 

Re: Docket Nos. 33, 49, 50 

Now before the Court for consideration is the motion to dismiss, filed by Defendants Ansel 

D. Kinney and the Law Offices of Ansel D. Kinney (collectively “the Kinney Defendants”). The 

Court has considered the parties’ papers, relevant legal authority, and the record in this case, and it 

HEREBY GRANTS the Kinney Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s Second Amended 

Complaint (“SAC”) in its entirety. 

In light of this ruling, the Court: (1) dismisses, without prejudice, the counter and crossclaims filed on November 5, 2015 by Defendant Cynthia Voss (“Voss”); (2) denies as moot, and 

without prejudice, the motion to dismiss filed by Karl Signaporia, and VACATES the hearing 

scheduled for December 11, 2015; (3) denies as moot, and without prejudice, the motion to 

dismiss filed by Plaintiff, Peter Bennett (“Bennett”), and VACATES the hearing scheduled for 

December 18, 2015; and (4) VACATES the case management conference scheduled for December 

18, 2015. The Court will reschedule the case management conference once it is clear that it has 

jurisdiction over this action and the case is fully at issue.1

 

 

1

 The Kinney Defendants argue that the Court should impose sanctions under Federal Rule 

of Civil Procedure 11. That request is DENIED. If Bennett files an amended complaint and the 

Kinney Defendants believe it violates Rule 11, they may renew their request by way of a properly 

noticed motion, which shows they complied with Rule 11(c)(2). 

Case 4:15-cv-02200-JSW Document 51 Filed 11/09/15 Page 1 of 6
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 Californi

a

BACKGROUND 

On May 15, 2015, Bennett filed his original complaint against the Kinney Defendants, 

Interstate Deposition Subpoena Service, Inc. (“Interstate”), Attorney Service of San Francisco 

(“ASSF”), and Tony Klein (“Klein”). (Docket No. 1.) Bennett asserted a claim under the Fair 

Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”), which provided the Court with jurisdiction over the 

action. Bennett also alleged that he was an individual currently residing in London, United 

Kingdom. (Compl. ¶ 1.) 

On June 18, 2015, Bennett filed an Amended Complaint, in which he added Cynthia Voss 

(“Voss) as a defendant. (Docket No. 10, Amended Complaint (“AC”).) Bennett re-asserted the 

FDCPA claim, and he continued to allege that he was an individual residing in London. (See AC 

¶¶ 1, 7.) 

On August 5, 2015, the Court granted, in part, the Kinney Defendants’ motion to dismiss 

the FDCPA claim. (Docket No. 24, Order Granting, in Part, Motion to Dismiss (“Order 

Dismissing AC”).) In that Order, the Court reserved ruling on the state law claims, because it was 

not clear that diversity jurisdiction existed. (Order Dismissing AC at 2:22-4:3.). 

On August 29, 2015, Bennett filed his Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”). Bennett 

now asserts state law claims against the Kinney Defendants and Voss for breach of fiduciary duty, 

breach of contract, aiding and abetting a breach of fiduciary duty, third party legal malpractice, 

and abuse of process.2 (SAC ¶¶ 54-87.) In brief, these claims arise out of alleged legal advice that 

the Kinney Defendants provided to Voss and out of their efforts to collect a judgment that Voss 

obtained against Bennett. (Id. ¶¶ 14-52.) 

Because Bennett dropped the FDCPA Claim, he contends that the Court has diversity 

jurisdiction. (Id. ¶ 7.) To support that contention, he alleges that he “is an individual currently 

residing in London, United Kingdom. He is a dual citizen of the United States and the United 

Kingdom. He holds a Utah driver’s license, and his wife owns a house in Utah.” (Id. ¶ 1.) 

Bennett also alleges that “on information and belief, Defendant Kinney resides in this District,” 

 

2

 Bennett voluntarily dismissed his claims against Interstate, ASSF, and Klein on September 

23, 2015. (Docket No. 43.) 

Case 4:15-cv-02200-JSW Document 51 Filed 11/09/15 Page 2 of 6
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 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

that the Law Offices of Ansel D. Kinney is a “law firm whose principal place of business is in this 

District,” and that Voss “resides in this District.” (Id. ¶¶ 2-3, 12.) It is undisputed that the amount 

in controversy exceeds $75,000. 

The Court shall address additional facts as necessary in the remainder of this Order. 

ANALYSIS 

A. Applicable Legal Standards. 

The Kinney Defendants move to dismiss, in part, on the basis that the Court lacks subject 

matter jurisdiction. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1). A motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter 

jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1) may be “facial or factual.” Safe Air for Everyone v. Meyer, 373 

F.3d 1035, 1039 (9th Cir. 2004). When a defendant raises a facial challenge to subject matter 

jurisdiction, a court “must accept as true all material allegations in the complaint, and must 

construe the complaint in” a plaintiffs’ favor. Chandler v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 598 

F.3d 1115, 1121-22 (9th Cir. 2010). 

However, where, as here, a defendant raises “factual attack,” the moving party questions 

the veracity of the plaintiff’s allegations that “would otherwise invoke federal jurisdiction.” Safe 

Air for Everyone, 373 F.3d at 1039. The plaintiff’s allegations are questioned by “introducing 

evidence outside the pleadings.” Leite v. Crane Co., 749 F.3d 1117, 1121 (9th Cir. 2014). “When 

the defendant raises a factual attack, the plaintiff must support ... jurisdictional allegations with 

‘competent proof,’ under the same evidentiary standard that governs in the summary judgment 

context.” Id. (quoting Hertz Corp. v. Friend, 559 U.S. 77, 96-97 (2010)). While the plaintiff 

typically has the burden of proof to establish subject matter jurisdiction, “if the existence of 

jurisdiction turns on disputed factual issues, the district court may resolve those factual disputes 

itself.” Id. at 1121-22 (citing Safe Air for Everyone, 373 F.3d at 1039-40). 

B. Bennett Has Not Met His Burden to Show Complete Diversity Exists. 

The Kinney Defendants argue that Bennett cannot establish complete diversity, because he 

has not shown, and cannot show, that he is a citizen of Utah. In order to “demonstrate citizenship 

for diversity purposes a party must be a citizen of the United States, and (b) be domiciled in a state 

of the United States.” Lew v. Moss, 797 F.2d 747, 749 (9th Cir. 1986) (emphasis added); see also 

Case 4:15-cv-02200-JSW Document 51 Filed 11/09/15 Page 3 of 6
4 

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 Californi

a

Newman-Green, Inc. v. Alfonzo-Larrain, 490 U.S. 826, 828 (1989) (emphasis in original); Turan 

Petroleum, Inc. v. Lentin, 482 F. Supp. 2d 1170, 1171 (C.D. Cal. 2007) (“[I]t has been held 

consistently that a diversity suit may not be maintained under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1) by or against 

a United States citizen who is domiciled in a foreign country, for a resident of a foreign country is 

not necessarily a citizen thereof.”) (quoting inter alia, Coury v. Prot, 85 F.3d 244, 249-50 (5th Cir. 

1996)). Thus, citizenship is determined by domicile, not residence. Kanter v. Warner-Lambert 

Co., 265 F.3d 853, 857 (9th Cir. 2001).3 

“A person’s domicile is [his] permanent home, where [he] resides with the intention to 

remain or to which [he] intends to return.” Kanter, 265 F.3d at 857 (citing Lew, 797 F.2d 747, 749 

(9th Cir. 1986)). Courts may consider a variety of factors to determine domicile, including: 

current residence, voting registration and voting practices, location 

of personal and real property, location of brokerage and bank 

accounts, location of spouse and family, membership in unions and 

other organizations, place of employment or business, driver’s 

license and automobile registration, and payment of taxes. 

Lew, 797 F.2d at 750 (and noting that no one factor controls determination). 

In support of their motion, the Kinney Defendants submit an Income and Expense 

Declaration that Bennett filed in the Superior Court of the State of California for the City and 

County of San Francisco (“San Francisco Superior Court”). (Mot., Ex. A.)4 That declaration 

shows that Bennett has paid taxes in the United Kingdom, where Bennett admits he currently 

resides and works. Those facts, coupled with Bennett’s allegations of residence, support an 

inference that Bennett was domiciled in London at the time he filed this suit and at the time he 

filed the SAC. 

Bennett has not put forth any evidence regarding domicile to rebut the Kinney Defendants’ 

factual showing. Instead, he relies on the allegations in the SAC that he holds a Utah driver’s 

 

3

 Although the Kinney Defendants have not disputed that they are citizens of California, the 

Court notes that there are no allegations in the SAC that demonstrate where Voss is domiciled. That omission also is “fatal to [Bennett’s] assertion of diversity jurisdiction.” Kanter, 265 F.3d at 

858. Accordingly, if Bennett files the amended complaint permitted by this Order, he must allege 

facts that show he is domiciled in a state different from all other named defendants. 

4

 Bennett has not objected to any of the exhibits attached to the Kinney Defendants’ motion. 

Case 4:15-cv-02200-JSW Document 51 Filed 11/09/15 Page 4 of 6
5 

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 Californi

a

license and his wife owns a home there. He also relies on arguments that are unsupported by 

evidence. The Court concludes that Bennett has not met his burden to show, by a preponderance 

of the evidence, that he is domiciled in Utah. Leite, 749 F.3d at 1121. 

Bennett also argues that he is a dual citizen of the United States and the United Kingdom. 

He thus argues that this allegation would provide the Court with jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

section 1332(a)(2). Bennett’s allegation that he is a dual citizen does not establish diversity 

jurisdiction. Cf., Brady v. Brown, 51 F.3d 810, 815 (9th Cir. 1995); Mutuelles Unies v. Kroll & 

Linstrom, 957 F.2d 707, 711 (9th Cir. 1992) (“only the American nationality of the dual citizen 

should be recognized” for purposes of Section 1332(a)(2)) (quoting Sadat v. Mertes, 615 F.2d 

1176, 1187 (7th Cir. 1980)). 

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS, IN PART, the Kinney Defendants’ motion to dismiss. 

Because the Court cannot say it would be futile to grant Bennett leave to amend to cure the defects 

identified by this Order, it will permit him one final opportunity to amend. See Carolina Casualty 

Ins. Co. v. Team Equipment, Inc., 741 F.3d 1082, 1086-88 (9th Cir. 2014). If Bennett can, in good 

faith and in compliance with his obligations under Rule 11, amend to cure these defects, he may 

file a third amended complaint by no later than December 11, 2015.

5

 The Court advises the 

parties that if the Kinney Defendants move to dismiss on the basis that the Court lacks jurisdiction 

and they believe that jurisdictional discovery would be appropriate, the Court will look favorably 

on such a request. 

C. Instructions Regarding Ms. Voss’ Counter and Cross-Claims.

At the time the Kinney Defendants filed their motion, Voss had not yet appeared. 

However, on November 5, 2015, Voss, acting pro se, filed an answer and counterclaims and, as 

set forth above, Karl Signaporia and Bennett have moved to dismiss the claims she asserts against 

them. It still is not clear whether all parties are diverse. Accordingly, the Court shall dismiss the 

SAC in its entirety. If Bennett chooses to amend his complaint, he must include allegations 

 

5

 The Court notes that, on June 25, 2014, Bennett filed a lawsuit against Voss in San 

Francisco Superior Court and alleged he was an individual residing in the County of Marin. (See

Docket No. 13-1, Declaration of Ansel D. Kinney, ¶ 3, Ex. A (Complaint ¶ 2).) 

Case 4:15-cv-02200-JSW Document 51 Filed 11/09/15 Page 5 of 6
United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

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 

sho

and

cou

mo

hel

or i

fro

abl

415

Co

Ca

130

DIS

AN

the

Da

owing that h

Becaus

d because th

unterclaims w

oot and witho

The Co

lpful informa

in the Clerk

m the Legal

le to provide

5-782-8982,

urt for the N

lifornia; or (

01 Clay Stre

For the 

SMISSES, W

ND WITHOU

e case manag

IT IS S

ated: Novemb

e is diverse 

e it is not cle

e Court has 

without prej

out prejudice

ourt HEREBY

ation about p

’s office. Th

l Help Cente

e basic legal 

 or by signin

Northern Dis

(2) Room 47

eet, 4th Floor

foregoing re

WITHOUT P

UT PREJUD

gement confe

SO ORDER

ber 9, 2015 

from all nam

ear whether 

dismissed th

udice, and d

e. 

Y ADVISES

proceeding w

he Court also

er. Voss may

help, but no

ng up for an 

trict of Calif

70-S, United 

r, Oakland, C

easons, the C

PREJUDICE

DICE, Signap

ference. 

RED. 

6

med defenda

the Court ha

he SAC in its

denies Mr. Si

S Voss that a

without an at

o advises Vo

y obtain a fre

ot legal repre

appointmen

fornia, 450 G

States Distr

California. 

CONCLU

Court GRAN

E, Voss’ cou

poria’s and B

ants. 

as subject m

s entirety, th

ignaporia’s 

a Handbook 

ttorney, is av

oss that she a

ee appointm

esentation, by

nt at: (1) Roo

Golden Gate

rict Court for

USION 

NTS the Kin

unter and cro

Bennett’s m

__

JE

Un

matter jurisdic

he Court dism

and Bennett

for Pro Se L

vailable thro

also may wi

ment with an 

y calling the

om 2796, Un

e Avenue, 15

r the Northe

nney Defenda

oss-claims, D

motions to dis

___________

EFFREY S. W

nited States D

ction over th

misses Voss

t’s motions t

Litigants, wh

ough the Cou

sh to seek as

attorney wh

e Legal Help

nited States D

5th Floor, Sa

ern District o

ant’s motion

DENIES, AS

smiss, and V

__________

WHITE 

District Judg

he action, 

’ 

o dismiss as

hich contain

urt’s website

ssistance 

ho may be 

p Center at 

District 

an Francisco

of California

n to dismiss, 

S MOOT, 

VACATES 

____ 

ge 

s

e

,

,

Case 4:15-cv-02200-JSW Document 51 Filed 11/09/15 Page 6 of 6