Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01059/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01059-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 370
Nature of Suit: Other Fraud
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Fraud

---

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 H. Kaur, P. Kaur, R. Singh, S. Singh and D. Singh will be referred to collectively as the “injured parties.” 1

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

HARJIT KAUR, et al., CASE NO. CV F 07-1059 LJO DLB

Plaintiffs, ORDER ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO

DISMISS

vs. (Doc. 5.)

KULBIR BAJWA,

Defendant.

 /

INTRODUCTION

Defendant Kulbir Bajwa (“Mr. Bajwa”) seeks to dismiss this intentional interference with

prospective economic advantage action on grounds that his California citizenship deprives this Court

of diversity jurisdiction. This Court considered Mr. Bajwa’s motion to dismiss on the record and

VACATES the October 9, 2007 hearing, pursuant to Local Rule 78-230(h). For the reasons discussed

below, this Court DISMISSES this action in the absence of diversity jurisdiction.

BACKGROUND

The Parties

This action arises from an underlying May 3, 2004 single-vehicle accident in which California

plaintiffs Harjit Kaur (“H. Kaur”), Parminderjit Kaur (“P. Kaur”), Ravneet Singh (“R. Singh”), Simratpal

Singh (“S. Singh”) and Dharampal Singh (“D. Singh”) were injured when the Dodge Durango in which 1

they were traveling rolled over. H. Kaur and P. Kaur’s mother, Surinder Kaur (“Mrs. Kaur”), was also

Case 1:07-cv-01059-LJO-DLB Document 7 Filed 10/03/07 Page 1 of 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 The injured parties and Mr. Sweeney will be referred to collectively as “plaintiffs.” 2

2

an occupant of the Durango and was killed. Plaintiff John E. Sweeney (“Mr. Sweeney”) is an attorney 2

and represented the injured parties in an underlying action against DaimlerChrysler Corporation

(“DaimlerChrysler”), the Durango’s manufacturer. Mr. Bajwa and H. Kaur were married at the time of

the accident.

Underlying Settlement

Within a few days of the accident, Mr. Bajwa, a mechanical engineer with automotive

engineering experience, traveled to the accident location and took possession of the Durango’s left front

wheel and tire. Mr. Bajwa claims that after he spent more than a month “recovering parts, taking

pictures and researching,” he suggested that the injured parties retain counsel. The injured parties and

Mr. Bajwa met with Mr. Sweeney, whom the injured parties retained on June 23, 2004. Mr. Bajwa

claims that Mr. Sweeney agreed to work with and compensate Mr. Bajwa as an “expert consultant” and

to compensate Mr. Bajwa on resolution of the injured parties’ claims.

The injured parties claim that in June 2006, Mr. Bajwa abandoned his wife H. Kaur and

disappeared to an unknown Texas location and that Mr. Sweeney engaged in settlement negotiations

with DaimlerChrysler. The injured parties contend that an essential element of their claims was chainof-custody information possessed by Mr. Bajwa regarding the Durango’s front left wheel and other

components of the Durango’s suspension. The injured parties allege that during the summer 2006, Mr.

Bajwa telephoned DaimlerChrysler attorneys and executives to claim that the injured parties’ case was

“fraudulent” and that Mr. Bajwa possessed information to reveal the fraud of the injured parties’ claims.

In November 2006, the injured parties settled their claims against DaimlerChrysler at what they

claim is a $1.5 million diminished value due to Mr. Bajwa’s “false and malicious statements” and an

impaired ability “to sustain the essential chain-of-custody proof.” Mr. Bajwa claims the he was neither

notified of the settlement nor compensated for his time or work. 

The Parties’ Actions

On May 2, 2007 in Kern County Superior Court, Mr. Bajwa filed his action (“Bajwa action”)

against plaintiffs and Mrs. Kaur’s estate to allege breach of contract, fraud and conversion causes of

Case 1:07-cv-01059-LJO-DLB Document 7 Filed 10/03/07 Page 2 of 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

3

action that he is entitled to $127,725 for his time and work as an expert consultant. On July 26, 2007,

plaintiffs removed the Bajwa action to this Court based on diversity jurisdiction.

On July 24, 2007, plaintiffs filed this action in this Court to allege interference with prospective

economic advantage causes of action against Mr. Bajwa and arising from his alleged interruption of

settlement negotiations with DaimlerChrysler. The injured parties claim Mr. Bajwa’s wrongdoing

deprived them of combined $1.5 million settlement proceeds. Mr. Sweeney claims a $500,000 attorney

fee loss from Mr. Bajwa’s wrongdoing.

Mr. Bajwa’s Motion To Dismiss

Mr. Bajwa pursues what this Court construes as a F.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss this

action on grounds that this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction in that there is no diversity of

citizenship among the parties. In his declaration, Mr. Bajwa states that he has continuously resided in

Kern County since June 13, 2007 after returning from Texas to secure employment with the California

Department of Transportation (“Caltrans”). Mr. Bajwa declares that he is a registered Kern County voter

and has an interim California driver’s license.

Plaintiffs contend that Mr. Bajwa was a Texas resident when he filed the Bajwa action and

characterize this action against himas a “counterclaim” precipitated by the Bajwa action. Plaintiffs note

that Mr. Bajwa delayed to serve any of them with the Bajwa action complaint until June 26, 2007, two

weeks after he moved to Kern County.

DISCUSSION

F.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1) Standards

F.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1) authorizes a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Fundamentally, federal courts are of limited jurisdiction. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 511 U.S.

375, 377, 114 S.Ct. 341 (1994). “A federal court is presumed to lack jurisdiction in a particular case

unless the contrary affirmatively appears.” Stock West, Inc. v. Confederated Tribes, 873 F. 2d 1221,

1225 (9 Cir. 1989). Limits on federal jurisdiction must neither be disregarded nor evaded. Owen th

Equipment & Erection Co. v. Kroger, 437 U.S. 365, 374, 98 S.Ct. 2396 (1978). A plaintiff bears the

burden to establish that subject matter jurisdiction is proper. Kokkonen, 511 U.S. at 377, 98 S.Ct. 2396.

A defendant may attack the existence of subject matter jurisdiction apart from the pleadings.

Case 1:07-cv-01059-LJO-DLB Document 7 Filed 10/03/07 Page 3 of 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

4

Mortensen v. First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n, 549 F.2d 884, 891 (3 Cir. 1977). In such a case, a court rd

may rely on evidence extrinsic to the pleadings and resolve factual disputes relating to jurisdiction. St.

Clair v. City of Chico, 880 F.2d 199, 201 (9 Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 993, 110 S.Ct. 541 (1989); th

Roberts v. Corrothers, 812 F.2d 1173, 1177 (9 Cir. 1987); Augustine v. United States, 704 F.2d 1074, th

1077 (9 Cir. 1983). th

With these standards in mind, this Court turns to the issue of diversity among the parties.

Diversity Of Citizenship

28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) establishes diversity of citizenship jurisdiction and provides in pertinent

part:

The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions where the

matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000 . . . and is between – 

(1) citizens of different States . . .

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1), there is diversity of citizenship if the plaintiff is a “citizen” of a different

state than all of the defendants. Lundquist v. Precision Valley Aviation, Inc., 946 F.2d 8, 10 (1 Cir. st

1991); Sweeney v. WestvacoCo., 926 F.2d 29, 32-33, 41 (1 Cir. 1991). “Citizenship” in a state is the st

equivalent of “domicile.” Lundquist, 946 F.2d at 10; Valedon Martinez v. Hospital Presbiteriano del

la Comunidad, Inc., 806 F.2d 1128, 1132 (1 Cir. 1986). st

“[T]he jurisdiction of the court depends upon the state of things at the time of the action

brought.” Mollan v. Torrance, 9 Wheat. 537, 539, 6 L.Ed. 154 (1824). A party’s citizenship for diversity

purposes is assessed “at the time the complaint was first filed.” LeBlanc v. Cleveland, 248 F.3d 95, 100

(2 Cir. 2001). “[H]ow diverse parties must be” and “where each party lives” will be determined “at

nd

the time of filing of the relevant complaint.” E.R. Squibb & Sons, Inc. v. Lloyd’s & Co., 241 F.3d 154,

163-164 (2 Cir. 2001). Where a party changes domicile, “[d]omicile is not lost by a subsequent change nd

in citizenship.” Martinez, 806 F.2d at 1132.

“The time-of-filing rule is what it is precisely because the facts determining jurisdiction are

subject to change, and because constant litigation in response to that change would be wasteful.” Grup

Dataflux v. Atlas Global Group, LP, 541 U.S. 567, 580, 124 S.Ct. 1920, 1929 (2004). “[T]he burden

of proof is on the plaintiff to support allegations of jurisdiction with competent proof when the

Case 1:07-cv-01059-LJO-DLB Document 7 Filed 10/03/07 Page 4 of 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

5

allegations are challenged by the defendant.” O’Toole v. Arlington Trust Co., 681 F.2d at 98 (1 Cir. st

1982). 

Plaintiffs’s complaint was filed this action on July 24, 2007 and is the relevant complaint for

diversity purposes. Plaintiffs fail to substantiate that the Bajwa action’s complaint and its filing date

determine diversity issues. Plaintiffs do not challenge meaningfully Mr. Bajwa’s declaration that he

moved to Kern County on June 13, 2007. Mr. Bajwa submits documentation of his Caltrans

employment of no later than June 16, 2007. Although Mr. Sweeney claims to possess it, he chose not

to “burden the court” with “voluminous documentary evidence . . . that Mr. Bajwa has committed

extensive perjury with respect to the very subject of his residence and domicile” during 2007. Plaintiffs

do not meet their burden to establish diversity jurisdiction given Mr. Bajwa’s unchallenged statements

of his California residency, starting June 13, 2007, 11 days before plaintiffs filed this action. This Court

is not in a position to second guess Mr. Bajwa’s statements of residency. 

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

For the reasons discussed above, this Court DISMISSES this action in the absence of diversity

jurisdiction and DIRECTS the clerk to close this action. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 3, 2007 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

66h44d UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-01059-LJO-DLB Document 7 Filed 10/03/07 Page 5 of 5