Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-03193/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-03193-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Hana Hilsenrath
Plaintiff
Oliver Hilsenrath
Plaintiff
Beth Mitchell
Defendant
Nixon Peabody LLP
Defendant
Glenn Westreich
Defendant

Document Text:

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

HANA HILSENRATH and OLIVER

HILSENRATH,

Plaintiffs,

v.

NIXON PEABODY LLP, GLENN WESTREICH

and BETH MITCHELL,

Defendants.

 /

No. C 07-3193 CW

ORDER DISMISSING

CASE FOR LACK OF

SUBJECT MATTER

JURISDICTION

On June 18, 2007, Plaintiffs Hana Hilsenrath and Oliver

Hilsenrath submitted a petition pursuant to California Civil Code 

§ 1714.10 for an order allowing them to file a complaint against

Nixon Peabody LLP, a law firm located in San Francisco, and two of

its partners, Glenn Westreich and Beth Mitchell. Plaintiffs also

submitted a copy of the complaint they seek to file. The case was

assigned to Judge Henderson, who entered an order to show cause why

the case should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter

jurisdiction. Plaintiffs filed a response on July 18, 2007 and the

case was reassigned to the undersigned on July 30, 2007.

Having considered the order to show cause and Plaintiffs'

response, the Court now dismisses Plaintiffs' case for lack of

Case 4:07-cv-03193-CW Document 10 Filed 09/11/07 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

subject matter jurisdiction. As explained in the order to show

cause, the Court lacks federal question jurisdiction pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 1331 because both of Plaintiffs' claims arise under state

tort laws. Further, Plaintiffs' response demonstrates that the

Court lacks diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332. 

Section 1332 provides in relevant part,

The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of

all civil actions where the matter in controversy

exceeds the sum or value of $ 75,000, exclusive of

interest and costs, and is between--

 (1) citizens of different States;

 (2) citizens of a State and citizens or subjects of a

foreign state.

28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). 

Judge Henderson noted that both Plaintiffs as well as all

three Defendants appear to be citizens of California. Plaintiffs

now argue that they are citizens and residents of Tel Aviv, Israel. 

However, Plaintiffs also concede that they are "citizens of the

United States and lived in California between 1996 and 2001." 

Plaintiffs' Response to Order to Show Cause at 2 n.1. 

The Ninth Circuit has held that in determining citizenship for

purposes of diversity jurisdiction, "only the American nationality

of the dual citizen should be recognized." Mutuelles Unies v.

Kroll & Linstrom, 957 F.2d 707, 711 (9th Cir. 1992) (quoting Sadat

v. Mertes, 615 F.2d 1176, 1187 (7th Cir. 1980)). This precludes

Plaintiffs' argument that diversity is created under § 1332(a)(2). 

Further, Plaintiffs cannot establish that diversity

jurisdiction exists pursuant to § 1332(a)(1), because that section

only provides jurisdiction over citizens of differing States within

the United States. If, as Plaintiffs allege, they are domiciled in

Case 4:07-cv-03193-CW Document 10 Filed 09/11/07 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

Israel, they are not citizens of any State in the United States. 

"To show state citizenship for diversity purposes under federal

common law a party must (1) be a citizen of the United States, and

(2) be domiciled in the state." Kantor v. Wellesley Galleries,

LDT, 704 F.2d 1088, 1090 (9th Cir. 1983). Although Plaintiffs are

citizens of the United States, if they are domiciled in Israel,

they do not meet the second requirement that they be domiciled in a

State. 

If Plaintiffs are domiciled in the United States, they appear

to reside in California. They list a Danville, California address

on their pleadings. Further, the Court notes that Oliver

Hilsenrath has recently been sentenced to twelve months of home

confinement at his Danville home in a separate criminal proceeding,

United States v. Hilsenrath, No. 03-213, and that he has alleged

that he is a resident of California in other civil pleadings. See,

e.g., Complaint in Hilsenrath v. Equity Trust Ltd., No. 07-4162, at

¶ 14 ("Plaintiff Oliver Hilsenrath is a scientist, both Israeli and

US citizen, and resident of California.").

For the foregoing reasons, the Court DISMISSES Plaintiffs'

case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. This dismissal is

without prejudice to refiling their case in state court.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

9/11/07

Dated: ________________________ 

CLAUDIA WILKEN

United States District Judge

Case 4:07-cv-03193-CW Document 10 Filed 09/11/07 Page 3 of 3