Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-02859/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-02859-0/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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAVID GONZALEZ CAMACHO, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 12-cv-2859-L(BGS)

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION

WITHOUT PREJUDICE FOR LACK

OF SUBJECT MATTER

JURISDICTION

On November 30, 2012, Plaintiffs David Gonzalez Camacho and Daniel Arrellano

Pesqueira commenced this tort action against Defendants Major League Baseball, Major League

Baseball Enterprises, Inc., Major League Baseball Properties, Inc., Office of the Commissioner

of Baseball, National Association of Professional Baseball Leagues, National Association of

Professional Baseball Leagues, Inc., and Minor League Baseball. Plaintiff filed this action

based upon federal diversity jurisdiction. (Compl. ¶ 2.) 

For the following reasons, the Court finds that Plaintiffs’ complaint is facially deficient

and DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE this action in its entirety for lack of subject matter

jurisdiction.

12cv2859

Case 3:12-cv-02859-L-BGS Document 3 Filed 12/03/12 Page 1 of 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

I. LEGAL STANDARD

“Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction.” Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of

Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). “They possess only that power authorized by Constitution or a

statute, which is not to be expanded by judicial decree.” Id. (internal citations omitted). “It is to

be presumed that a cause lies outside this limited jurisdiction and the burden of establishing the

contrary rests upon the party asserting jurisdiction.” Id. (internal citations omitted); see also

Abrego Abrego v. The Dow Chem. Co., 443 F.3d 676, 684 (9th Cir. 2006). 

“Subject matter jurisdiction based upon diversity of citizenship requires that no defendant

have the same citizenship as any plaintiff.” Tosco Corp. v. Communities for a Better Env’t, 236

F.3d 495, 499 (9th Cir. 2001) (per curiam), abrogated on other grounds by Hertz Corp v. Friend,

130 S. Ct. 1181 (2010). “A plaintiff suing in federal court must show in his pleading,

affirmatively and distinctly, the existence of whatever is essential to federal jurisdiction, and, if

he does not do so, the court . . . on discovering the [defect], must dismiss the case, unless the

defect be corrected by amendment.” Tosco, 236 F.3d at 499 (quoting Smith v. McCullough, 270

U.S. 456, 459 (1926)).

Although there has not been a request for dismissal, it is well-established that “a district

court’s duty to establish subject matter jurisdiction is not contingent upon the parties’

arguments.” See United Investors Life Ins. Co. v. Waddell & Reed Inc., 360 F.3d 960, 966 (9th

Cir. 2004). Courts may consider the issue sua sponte. Demery v. Kupperman, 735 F.2d 1139,

1149 n.8 (9th Cir. 1984). Indeed, the Supreme Court has emphasized that “district courts have

an ‘independent obligation to address subject-matter jurisdiction sua sponte.’” Grupo Dataflux

v. Atlas Global Grp., L.P., 541 U.S. 567, 593 (2004) (quoting United States v. S. Cal. Edison

Co., 300 F. Supp. 2d 964, 972 (E.D. Cal. 2004)).

II. ANALYSIS

In attempting to invoke this Court’s diversity jurisdiction, the plaintiff must prove that

there is complete diversity of citizenship between the parties and that the amount in controversy

exceeds $75,000. 28 U.S.C. § 1332. “Subject matter jurisdiction based upon diversity of

2 12cv2859

Case 3:12-cv-02859-L-BGS Document 3 Filed 12/03/12 Page 2 of 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

citizenship requires that no defendant have the same citizenship as any plaintiff.” Tosco Corp. v.

Communities for a Better Env’t, 236 F.3d 495, 499 (9th Cir. 2001) (per curiam), abrogated on

other grounds by Hertz Corp v. Friend, 130 S. Ct. 1181 (2010). “In determining whether there

is diversity between corporate parties, ‘a corporation shall be deemed to be a citizen of any State

by which it has been incorporated and of the State where it has its principal place of business.’”

Id. (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1)). “[W]here corporations are involved, the party seeking

jurisdiction must allege the state of the corporation’s principal place of business as well as the

state of incorporation.” United States v. Aldridge, 56 F.3d 73 (9th Cir. 1995) (unpublished table

decision) (emphasis added). 

In its complaint, Plaintiffs identify three defendants as corporations: Major League

Baseball Enterprises, Inc., Major League Baseball Properties, Inc., and National Association of

Professional Baseball Leagues, Inc. Plaintiffs allege that each of these corporate defendants

“does business in the State of California, and the County of San Diego,” but fail to allege the

state in which these defendants have been incorporated and where they have their respective

principal places of business. (Compl. ¶¶ 6–7, 10.) Furthermore, excluding Major League

Baseball, Plaintiffs fail to allege the citizenship of the remaining non-corporate defendants. (Id.

¶¶ 5, 8–9, 11.) Simply put, the complaint is missing allegations of a parties’ citizenship that are

essential to establish diversity jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332. This failure casts doubt as to

whether this Court properly has subject-matter jurisdiction over this case because the Court

cannot conclude that there is complete diversity between the parties. See Tosco, 236 F.3d at 499.

Alternatively, Plaintiffs may have meant the “does business in” language to indicate the

corporate defendants’ principal places of business. Under that interpretation, and given that each

of the three corporate defendants “does business in” California, that would make those

defendants citizens of California. See Aldridge, 56 F.3d at 73. However, it is unclear exactly

where Mr. Gonzalez’s state citizenship belongs. For the purposes of federal diversity 1

 Plaintiffs refer to David Gonzalez Camacho as David Gonzalez or Plaintiff Gonzalez in 1

the complaint. (Compl. ¶¶ 1, 4.) Consequently, the Court will refer to David Gonzalez

Camacho as Mr. Gonzalez. Also, Mr. Pequeira’s unequivocally is not a citizen of any state in

the United States. (Id. ¶ 4.) He is a citizen of Mexico who resides and does business there.

3 12cv2859

Case 3:12-cv-02859-L-BGS Document 3 Filed 12/03/12 Page 3 of 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

jurisdiction, “state citizenship is . . . determined by . . . state of domicile,” and that “[a] person’s

domicile is her permanent home, where she [or he] resides with the intention to remain or to

which she [or he] intends to return.” Kanter v. Warner-Lambert Co., 265 F.3d 853, 857 (9th Cir.

2001). According to the complaint, Mr. Gonzalez “is an individual who is a citizen of Mexico

and who is domiciled and does business in the City of Tijuana, State of Baja California, in the

country of Mexico, and who does business and resides in the County of San Diego, California,

USA.” (Compl. ¶ 4 (emphasis added).) That allegation may be interpreted to mean that Mr.

Gonzalez is a citizen of California. These interpretations of the parties’ citizenship may lead to a

failure to satisfy the complete-diversity-of-citizenship requirement under 28 U.S.C. § 1332.

III. CONCLUSION & ORDER

Accordingly, because the complaint does not allege facts necessary to establish diversity

jurisdiction as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1332, the Court DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE

this action in its entirety for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. See Tosco, 236 F.3d at 499. If

Plaintiff can correct these deficiencies in the complaint, including but not limited to clarifying

the citizenship status of Plaintiffs and Defendants, they may file an amended complaint by

December 21, 2012. See 28 U.S.C. § 1653.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: December 3, 2012

M. James Lorenz

United States District Court Judge

COPY TO: 

HON. BERNARD G. SKOMAL

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

ALL PARTIES/COUNSEL

4 12cv2859

Case 3:12-cv-02859-L-BGS Document 3 Filed 12/03/12 Page 4 of 4