Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-04490/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-04490-6/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Carla Camargo
Plaintiff
Milton Miltiadous
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CARLA CAMARGO,

Plaintiff,

v.

MILTON MILTIADOUS,

Defendant.

Case No. 14-cv-04490-JSC 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: 

SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION

In October 2014, Plaintiff Carla Camargo, a California resident and citizen of Brazil, filed 

suit against Defendant Milton Miltiadous, an Australian citizen and resident of Tokyo, Japan, and 

Does 1-10, alleging claims for libel, invasion of privacy, and false light. Plaintiff alleged that the 

Defendants posted defamatory statements regarding her online. Plaintiff’s motion for default 

judgment as to Defendant Miltiadous is now pending before the Court. (Dkt. No. 39.) 

Upon review of the motion, the Court has concerns regarding its subject matter jurisdiction

given that the doe defendants remain unnamed and the action proceeds only as to Defendant 

Miltiadous.1 Plaintiff avers that the Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(4); 

however, section 1332(a)(4) only covers actions where the Plaintiff is a “foreign state.” While

Plaintiff is a citizen of a foreign state, she is not herself a foreign state. Thus, to establish subject 

matter jurisdiction via diversity of citizenship, Plaintiff must satisfy one of the other bases for 

 

1 Although Plaintiff was granted leave to conduct early discovery to identify the individuals who 

made the online posts, she did not amend the complaint to name any additional defendants 

following issuance of subpoenas seeking this information.

Case 3:14-cv-04490-JSC Document 45 Filed 04/04/16 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

jurisdiction in Section 1332(a). The remaining subsections of section 1332(a) provides for 

diversity jurisdiction in actions between

(1) citizens of different States;

(2) citizens of a State and citizens or subjects of a foreign state, 

except that the district courts shall not have original jurisdiction 

under this subsection of an action between citizens of a State and 

citizens or subjects of a foreign state who are lawfully admitted for 

permanent residence in the United States and are domiciled in the 

same State;

(3) citizens of different States and in which citizens or subjects of a 

foreign state are additional parties.

However, given that Plaintiff alleges that both she and Defendant Miltiadous are citizens of 

foreign states (Brazil and Australia, respectively), none of these appear to apply. “Although the 

federal courts have jurisdiction over an action between ‘citizens of a State and citizens or subjects 

of a foreign state,’ 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(2), diversity jurisdiction does not encompass a foreign 

plaintiff suing foreign defendants.” Nike, Inc. v. Comercial Iberica de Exclusivas Deportivas, 

S.A., 20 F.3d 987, 991 (9th Cir. 1994) (citing Cheng v. Boeing Co., 708 F.2d 1406, 1412 (9th Cir. 

1983).). That Plaintiff is domiciled in California does not create diversity jurisdiction where both 

parties are citizens of foreign states. See Matao Yokeno v. Sawako Sekiguchi, 754 F.3d 649, 657 

(9th Cir. 2014).

Accordingly, Plaintiff is ORDERED SHOW CAUSE as to how the Court has subject 

matter jurisdiction over this action. Plaintiff shall file a written response to this Order by April 18, 

2016. The Court shall address this issue among the other issues raised in Plaintiff’s motion for 

default judgment at the hearing scheduled for April 28, 2016 at 9:00 a.m. in Courtroom F, 450 

Golden Gate Ave., San Francisco, California. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 4, 2016

JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:14-cv-04490-JSC Document 45 Filed 04/04/16 Page 2 of 2