Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cv-00040/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cv-00040-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
CarePointe LLC
Defendant
Aaron Duerksen
Defendant
Nevada Heart and Vascular Center
Defendant
Onpointe
Defendant
Gitesh Patel
Plaintiff
Lawrence M. Preston
Defendant
Professional Medical Consultants
Defendant
John Rittenour
Defendant
Sargas Pharmaceutical Adherence & Compliance (SPAC) International LLC
Plaintiff
Vizihealthcare
Defendant

Document Text:

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GITESH PATEL, doing business as

SARGAS PHARMACEUTICAL 

ADHERENCE & COMPLIANCE (SPAC) 

INTERNATIONAL LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

CAREPOINTE LLC, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 1:20-cv-00040-DAD-JLT

ORDER SUA SPONTE DISMISSING ACTION 

FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER 

JURISDICTION

On January 10, 2020, the court issued an order requiring plaintiff to show cause in writing 

as to why this action should not be dismissed due to lack of subject matter jurisdiction. (Doc. No. 

5.) In particular, the court noted that plaintiff asserts in his complaint that this court has subject 

matter jurisdiction based on diversity of citizenship pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332, but he alleges 

that he is a citizen of California and that one of the defendants, Aaron Duerksen, is a resident of 

California. (Id.; see also Doc. No. 1 at 2, 3.) A copy of the court’s order was served by mail on 

plaintiff at his address of record. Plaintiff was given fourteen (14) days to respond to the court’s 

order to show cause, and he has failed to do so. 

“Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction.” Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of 

Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). “[S]ubject matter jurisdiction of the district court is not a 

Case 1:20-cv-00040-DAD-JLT Document 8 Filed 02/12/20 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

waivable matter and may be raised at anytime by one of the parties, by motion or in the 

responsive pleadings, or sua sponte by the trial or reviewing court.” Emrich v. Touche Ross & 

Co., 846 F.2d 1190, 1194 n.2 (9th Cir. 1988); see also Henderson ex rel. Henderson v. Shinseki, 

562 U.S. 428, 434–35 (2011) (noting objections to subject matter jurisdiction may be raised posttrial). “It is to be presumed that a cause lies outside this limited jurisdiction, and the burden of 

establishing the contrary rests upon the party asserting jurisdiction.” Kokkonen, 511 U.S. at 377 

(internal citation omitted).

Here, plaintiff filled out a pro se form complaint for a civil case alleging breach of 

contract in federal court based on diversity of citizenship, citing 28 U.S.C. § 1332. (Doc. No. 1.) 

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, federal courts have jurisdiction on the basis of diversity of citizenship if 

the matter is between citizens of different states and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. 

In fact, the form complaint that plaintiff utilized provides the following explanation and direction:

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, federal courts may hear cases in which a 

citizen of one State sues a citizen of another State or nation and the 

amount at stake is more than $75,000. In that kind of case, called a 

diversity of citizenship case, no defendant may be a citizen of the 

same State as any plaintiff. Explain how these jurisdictional 

requirements have been met.

(Id. at 3.) The form complaint prompts plaintiff to fill in blanks to allege his citizenship and the 

citizenship of the defendant. (Id.) If the complaint names more than one defendant, the plaintiff 

is directed to attach an additional page “providing the same information for each additional 

defendant.” (Id. at 4.) 

Plaintiff has named eight total defendants in his complaint: CarePointe LLC, John 

Rittenour, Vizihealthcare, Aaron Duerksen, Nevada Heart and Vascular Center, Professional 

Medical Consultants, Onpointe, and Lawrence M. Preston. (Id. at 1.) In the space provided by 

the form complaint, plaintiff alleges that: (1) he is a citizen of California; (2) defendant John 

Rittenour is a citizen of Arizona; and (3) defendant CarePointe LLC is incorporated under the 

laws of Arizona and has its principal place of business in Arizona. (Id. at 3.) Despite the form 

complaint’s prompt to provide the citizenship information of the additional defendants in an 

attachment, plaintiff has provided only the names and addresses of those defendants. 

Case 1:20-cv-00040-DAD-JLT Document 8 Filed 02/12/20 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

Specifically, plaintiff provides an Arizona address for defendant Vizihealthcare, a Nevada address 

for defendants Nevada Heart and Vascular Center, Professional Medical Consultants, and 

Lawrence M. Preston, and a Tennessee address for defendant Onpointe. (Id. at 6.) But—fatal to 

his assertion of diversity jurisdiction—plaintiff provides a California address for Aaron Duerksen. 

(Id. at 2.) Plaintiff’s jurisdictional allegations are facially deficient because complete diversity is 

not alleged. Further, plaintiff has failed to respond to the court’s order to show cause as to why 

this case should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Accordingly:

1. This action is dismissed, without prejudice, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction; 

and

2. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 12, 2020 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:20-cv-00040-DAD-JLT Document 8 Filed 02/12/20 Page 3 of 3