Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-01185/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-01185-0/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

1 Erroneously stated in the Complaint as 28 U.S.C. § 1337(a)(2). (Compl. ¶ 7.)

2 For clarity the court will refer to Francisco Jose Gallego, Jr. as Francisco Jose, Jr.,

to Rosa Eugenia Gallego as Rosa Eugenia, and to Hector Manuel Gallego Garcia as Hector

Manuel. No disrespect is intended.

07cv1185

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FRANCISCO JOSE GALLEGO, JR. et al.

Plaintiffs,

v.

HECTOR MANUEL GALLEGO

GARCIA,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No. 07cv1185-L(LSP)

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT

FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER

JURISDICTION AND DENYING AS

MOOT DEFENDANT’S MOTION

TO DISMISS 

Plaintiffs Francisco Jose Gallego, Jr., Rosa Eugenia Gallego and the estate of Francisco

Jose Gallego Garcia, Sr. filed a complaint for fraud and other state law torts based on diversity

of citizenship pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(2).1

 Defendant Hector Manuel Gallego Garcia2

filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2), (3) and (5) for

lack of personal jurisdiction, improper venue and insufficient service, as well as forum non

conveniens. Because Plaintiffs fail to allege, and the record does not reflect, the facts necessary

to determine whether the parties are diverse, the complaint is dismissed for lack of subject matter

jurisdiction. Defendant’s motion is denied as moot.

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

Case 3:07-cv-01185-MMA-WVG Document 15 Filed 03/24/08 Page 1 of 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

2 07cv1185

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). 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). 

Diversity jurisdiction may be based on citizenship as well as alienage. See 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1332(a)(2)-(4). This case involves United States citizens and Mexican citizens. The complete

diversity rule applies in alienage cases. Newman-Green, Inc. v. Alfonzo-Larrain, 490 U.S. 826,

828 (1989). This meas that all plaintiffs must be of different citizenship than all defendants. 

Strawbridge v. Curtiss, 7 U.S. 267 (1806).

Plaintiffs allege that Rosa Eugenia “is a Mexican citizen with permanent resident status in

the United States and resides in San Diego, California.” (Compl. ¶ 3.) For purposes of section

1332, “an alien admitted to the United States for permanent residence shall be deemed a citizen

of the State in which such alien is domiciled.” 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). However, Plaintiffs do not

allege where Rosa Eugenia is domiciled. This alone is a defect in their pleading of federal

jurisdiction. Kanter v. Warner-Lambert Co., 265 F.3d 853, 857-58 (9th Cir. 2001).

Plaintiffs allege that Francisco Jose, Jr. “is a United States Citizen and lives in San Diego,

California.” (Compl. ¶ 2.) They do not disclose anywhere in the record the state of his domicile. 

See Kanter, 265 F.3d at 857. Again, this alone is a defect in their pleading of federal

jurisdiction. Id. at 858. 

Furthermore, Francisco Jose Jr.’s declaration contradicts the allegations in the complaint. 

He states he is a United States citizen who currently resides and has resided in Tijuana, Mexico

since 1998. (Francisco Jose, Jr. Decl. ¶ 1.) “[T]o be a citizen of a State within the meaning of

the diversity statute, a natural person must both be a citizen of the United States and be

Case 3:07-cv-01185-MMA-WVG Document 15 Filed 03/24/08 Page 2 of 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

3 07cv1185

domiciled within the State.” Brady v. Brown, 51 F.3d 810, 815 (9th Cir. 1995), citing

Newman-Green, 490 U.S. at 828. If Francisco Jose, Jr. is not domiciled in any State in the

United States, he is neither a citizen of a State nor an alien for purposes of section 1332. Brady,

51 F.3d at 815; see also Cresswell v. Sullivan & Cromwell, 922 F.2d 60, 68 (2nd Cir. 1990). 

Section 1332(a) does not provide that the courts have jurisdiction over a suit to which such

persons are parties. Cresswell, 922 F.2d at 68. 

Plaintiffs allege that Hector Manuel is a citizen of Mexico. (Compl. ¶ 6.) His residency

is unclear. Although Hector Manuel strenuously disputes it (see Hector Manuel Decl. ¶¶ 2-6),

Plaintiffs presented evidence that he resides in San Diego, California. (Rosa Eugenia Decl. ¶ 15;

Zeldes Decl. Ex. A & E.) Plaintiffs do not indicate whether Hector Manuel is admitted to the

United States for permanent residence or whether he is domiciled in California. If he is admitted

for permanent residence and is domiciled in California, he is deemed a citizen of California. See

28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). As a California citizen, he would most likely not be diverse from Rosa

Eugenia.

Because Plaintiffs do not allege, and the record does not reflect, the facts necessary to

establish diversity as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1332, the complaint is DISMISSED for lack of

subject matter jurisdiction. Plaintiffs may amend the complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1653. Any

such amended complaint shall be filed no later than April 28, 2008. Defendant’s pending

motion to dismiss is DENIED AS MOOT.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: March 24, 2008

M. James Lorenz

United States District Court Judge

COPY TO: 

HON. LEO S . PAPAS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

ALL PARTIES/COUNSEL

Case 3:07-cv-01185-MMA-WVG Document 15 Filed 03/24/08 Page 3 of 3