Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-02202/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-02202-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Other Civil Rights

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SHIERKATZ RLLP,

Plaintiff,

v.

SQUARE, INC.,

Defendant.

Case No. 15-cv-02202-JST 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

The complaint in this case alleges federal jurisdiction on the basis of 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1332(d)(2). ECF No. 21 at ¶ 3. That statute requires that at least one member of the putative 

plaintiff class be “a citizen of a State different from any defendant.” Id. 

Plaintiffs’ complaint alleges that “Defendant Square, Inc. (Credit Card Company) is a 

Delaware corporation registered with the California Secretary of State as a foreign corporation 

qualified to do business in the State of California and which has its principle place of business in 

San Francisco, California,” id. at ¶ 2, but does not allege that at least one member of the putative

class is a citizen of a state other than California or Delaware.

1

 

 

1

To identify a corporation's citizenship for purposes of diversity 

jurisdiction, “a corporation shall be deemed to be a citizen of any 

State by which it has been incorporated and of the State where it has 

its principal place of business . . . .” 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1) (1994).

For this reason, “a corporation is typically a citizen of two states for 

determining the existence of diversity jurisdiction: the state of 

incorporation and the state in which it has its principal place of 

business.” Breitman v. May Co. California, 37 F.3d 562, 564 (9th 

Cir.1994).

Montrose Chem. Corp. of California v. Am. Motorists Ins. Co., 117 F.3d 1128, 1134 (9th Cir. 

1997); Weaver v. Nestle USA, Inc., No. C 08-03636 JSW, 2008 WL 5453734, at *1-2 (N.D. Cal. 

Oct. 30, 2008). 

Case 3:15-cv-02202-JST Document 46 Filed 09/16/15 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

“It is a principle of first importance that the federal courts are tribunals of limited subject 

matter jurisdiction.” 13 Charles Alan Wright, Arthur Miller, Edward Cooper & Richard Freer, 

Federal Practice & Procedure § 3522. “The requirement that jurisdiction be established as a 

threshold matter ‘spring[s] from the nature and limits of the judicial power of the United States’

and is ‘inflexible and without exception.’” Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env't, 523 U.S. 83, 

94-95, (1998) (quoting Mansfield, C. & L.M.R. Co. v. Swan, 111 U.S. 379, 382 (1884)).

Accordingly, in a diversity action, the plaintiff must state the parties' citizenships such that the 

existence of diversity can be confirmed. Kanter v. Warner-Lambert Co., 265 F.3d 853, 857 (9th 

Cir. 2001). 

Plaintiff’s complaint does not satisfy this requirement. Within ten days of the filing date of 

this order, Plaintiff Shierkatz RLLP is ordered to show cause why the Court should not dismiss 

this action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Defendant Square, Inc. shall file any reply 

within seven days of the filing of Plaintiff’s response to this Order.2

The hearing on Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss First Amended Complaint or in the 

Alternative to Stay and to Compel Arbitration, presently scheduled on October 1, 2015, is vacated. 

The hearing on that motion will be rescheduled if the Court determines that it has subject matter 

jurisdiction and that a hearing on the motion is required. Civ. L.R. 7-1(b). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 16, 2015

______________________________________

JON S. TIGAR

United States District Judge

 

2

The Court notes that defendant Square has agreed in its prior filings that the Court has subject 

matter jurisdiction. ECF No. 27 at 4. The stipulation of the parties, however, is insufficient to 

create subject matter jurisdiction. 3250 Wilshire Blvd. Bldg. v. W.R. Grace & Co.- Connecticut, 

933 F.2d 1016 (9th Cir. 1991). 

Case 3:15-cv-02202-JST Document 46 Filed 09/16/15 Page 2 of 2