Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-00260/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-00260-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 320
Nature of Suit: Assault, Libel, and Slander
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Libel,Assault,Slander

---

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

11cv260

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SEMYON KHAZIN,

Plaintiff,

v.

OLEG ASHKANAZI and GENNADY

DORODANSKY,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No. 11cv260 L(BGS)

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION FOR

LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER

JURISDICTION WITH LEAVE TO

AMEND

Plaintiff filed this action on February 8, 2011, alleging three state-law causes of action

against two individual defendants and the Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28

U.S.C. §1332(a)(1). Because plaintiff has not adequately alleged subject matter jurisdiction, the

action is DISMISSED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. 

The federal court is one of limited jurisdiction. See Gould v. Mutual Life Ins. Co. of N.Y.,

790 F.2d 769, 774 (9th Cir. 1986). It possesses only that power authorized by the Constitution or

a statute. See Bender v. Williamsport Area Sch. Dist., 475 U.S. 534, 541 (1986). It is

constitutionally required to raise issues related to federal subject matter jurisdiction and may do

so sua sponte. Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env't, 523 U.S. 83, 93-94 (1998); see Indus.

Tectonics, Inc. v. Aero Alloy, 912 F.2d 1090, 1092 (9th Cir. 1990). A federal court must satisfy

itself of its jurisdiction over the subject matter before proceeding to the merits of the case. 

Ruhrgas AG v. Marathon Oil Co., 526 U.S. 574, 577, 583 (1999). 

Case 3:11-cv-00260-L-BGS Document 4 Filed 02/14/11 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 11cv260

The plaintiff bears the burden of demonstrating that jurisdiction is properly before the

court. See Thornhill Publ’g Co. v. General Tel. & Elec. Corp., 594 F.2d 730, 733 (9th Cir.

1979). The complaint must affirmatively allege the state of citizenship of each party. Bautista v.

Pan Am. World Airlines, Inc., 828 F.2d 546, 551 (9th Cir. 1987); see also Kanter v. WarnerLambert, Co., 265 F.3d 853 (9th Cir. 2001). Diversity jurisdiction requires complete diversity of

citizenship, with each plaintiff being a citizen of a different state from each defendant. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1332(a)(1); Morris v. Princess Cruises, Inc., 236 F.3d 1061, 1067 (9th Cir. 2001)

Here plaintiff states he resides in California; defendant Borodansky resides in New York

and defendant Oleg Ashkanazi resides in California. Because plaintiff and defendant Ashkanazi

reside in California, the complaint does not allege the facts necessary to establish diversity as

required by 28 U.S.C. §1332. Accordingly, the complaint is dismissed for lack of subject matter

jurisdiction. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1653, plaintiff is granted leave to file an amended complaint

to allege subject matter jurisdiction if possible. If plaintiff chooses to file an amended complaint,

he must do so no later than February 25, 2011. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: February 14, 2011

M. James Lorenz

United States District Court Judge

COPY TO: 

HON. BERNARD G. SKOMAL

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

ALL PARTIES/COUNSEL

Case 3:11-cv-00260-L-BGS Document 4 Filed 02/14/11 Page 2 of 2