Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-02950/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-02950-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 160
Nature of Suit: Stockholder's Suits
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Stockholders Suits

---

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

Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BLUESKY COMPANIES INC., a 

California corporation; PETER VILA; 

PAUL HUNTER; ANTHONY TULINO; 

and OLIVER MARKHAM HEALY III,

Plaintiffs,

v.

BRIAN HALL, BLUESKY COMPANIES, 

INC., a California corporation; and DOES 

1-40, inclusive,

Defendants.

Case No. 16-cv-02950-MMC 

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION FOR 

LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER 

JURISDICTION

Before the Court is plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint ("FAC"), filed June 10, 

2016, in which plaintiffs, who are four individuals who allege they are shareholders in 

BlueSky Companies, Inc. ("BlueSky"), assert state law claims against defendant Brian 

Hall, an individual alleged to be a director and officer of BlueSky.1 Plaintiffs assert the 

Court has diversity jurisdiction over the claims in the FAC. Having read and considered 

the FAC, the Court, for the reasons set forth below, will dismiss the instant action for lack 

of subject matter jurisdiction.

A district court has diversity jurisdiction “where the matter in controversy exceeds 

the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs,” see 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a), 

and is between “citizens of different States,” see 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1). The diversity 

 

1BlueSky is named in the caption as a plaintiff and a defendant. As set forth in the 

Court's order of June 10, 2016, in light of plaintiffs' allegation that an antagonistic 

relationship exists between plaintiffs and the controlling members of BlueSky, BlueSky is 

treated as a defendant.

Case 3:16-cv-02950-MMC Document 13 Filed 06/15/16 Page 1 of 2
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

must be "complete," i.e., the “citizenship of each plaintiff [must be] diverse from the 

citizenship of each defendant.” See Caterpillar, Inc. v. Lewis, 519 U.S. 61, 68 & n.3 

(1996).

By order filed June 10, 2016, the Court dismissed plaintiffs' initial complaint, 

finding plaintiffs had failed to allege any facts to support a finding that the instant action is 

between citizens of different states. Specifically, other than alleging sufficient facts to 

support a finding that BlueSky is a citizen of California, the Court noted plaintiffs had not 

alleged the citizenship of any of the four plaintiffs or of the one individual defendant. The 

Court afforded plaintiffs leave to amend to allege, if they could, facts to support a finding 

that the parties are diverse in citizenship.

In the FAC, plaintiffs now identify the state in which each individual plaintiff and the 

one individual defendant is a citizen. As is evident from the face of the FAC, however, 

the parties are not diverse. Specifically, plaintiff Peter Vila is alleged to be "a citizen of 

California" (see Compl. ¶ 1), as are defendant Brian Hall (see Compl. ¶ 5) and defendant 

BlueSky (see Compl. ¶ 6).

Accordingly, as complete diversity is lacking, the instant action is hereby 

DISMISSED for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, without prejudice to plaintiffs' refiling 

their claims in state court.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 15, 2016

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:16-cv-02950-MMC Document 13 Filed 06/15/16 Page 2 of 2