Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-02028/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-02028-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity Action

---

1

19cv2028-LAB (JLB)

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

EDITH GOMEZ, et al.

Plaintiffs,

v.

LAURIE HERNANDEZ

Defendant.

Case No.: 19cv2028-LAB (JLB)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

WITHOUT PREJUDICE

After Plaintiffs filed their complaint, the Court issued an order to show cause 

why this action should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and 

for improper venue. The claims stem from a car accident that occurred in Riverside 

County. 

Plaintiffs have now amended their complaint. Although they cite the U.S. 

Constitution, their claims do not arise under it or under any federal law and they 

have not argued that the Court can exercise federal question jurisdiction over this 

action. Rather, the Amended Complaint relies on alienage jurisdiction. (Am. 

Compl. at 1:26–2:3.)

Plaintiffs allege that they are Mexican citizens, but have failed to allege 

Defendant’s citizenship. Although the Court’s order cited Rainero v. Archon Corp., 

844 F.3d 832, 839 (9th Cir. 2016) for the principle that alleging residence is not 

Case 3:19-cv-02028-LAB-JLB Document 6 Filed 11/04/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 2
2

19cv2028-LAB (JLB)

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

enough to plead citizenship, Plaintiffs have still not pled Hernandez’s state or 

national citizenship. Instead, they continue to allege only that she is a resident of 

California. (Id. at 2:1–3.) Plaintiffs therefore have not met their burden of 

establishing subject matter jurisdiction. See NewGen, LLC v. Safe Cig, LLC, 840 

F.3d 606, 613–14 (9th Cir. 2016). See also Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of 

Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994) (federal jurisdiction is presumed to be lacking, until 

the party invoking the court’s jurisdiction establishes otherwise).

The Court also pointed out that venue appeared to be improper here. See 

Costlow v. Weeks, 790 F.2d 1486, 1488 (9th Cir. 1988) (district court can raise 

issue of defective venue sua sponte, as long as it has not been waived). The 

accident occurred in the Central District of California, and nothing in the complaint 

connects either the cause of action or any of the parties with this District. The Court 

can, and does, raise rely on defective venue as an alternative basis for dismissal. 

See id. at 1488 (affirming dismissal of action for improper venue).

Because Plaintiffs have failed to meet their burden to plead facts establishing 

subject matter jurisdiction, and because venue is improper in this District, this 

action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 4, 2019

Honorable Larry Alan Burns

Chief United States District Judge

Case 3:19-cv-02028-LAB-JLB Document 6 Filed 11/04/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2