Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-02616/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-02616-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Elaine Parker-Reed
Plaintiff
Sprint Corporation
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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

----oo0oo----

ELAINE PARKER-REED,

NO. CIV. S 03-2616 MCE PAN

Plaintiff,

v. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

SPRINT CORPORATION, George

White, and DOES 1-49

inclusive,

Defendants.

----oo0oo----

On October 18, 2005, Defendant Sprint/United Management

Company (“Sprint”) filed a motion for immediate stay and

reconsideration of this Court’s order remanding the above

entitled action to state court for lack of federal jurisdiction. 

As a basis for its motion, Sprint avers that the Court mistakenly

assumed that federal jurisdiction had been premised on a federal

question rather than on diversity. In its motion, Sprint has

requested an immediate stay of this Court’s remand order pending

reconsideration thereof. For the reasons set forth below,

Case 2:03-cv-02616-MCE -PAN Document 26 Filed 10/20/05 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

Because oral argument will not be of material assistance, 1

the Court orders this motion for an immediate stay submitted on

the briefs. E.D. Cal. Local Rule 78-230(h). 

2

Sprint’s motion for an immediate stay is denied.1

As an initial matter, Sprint originally moved for summary

adjudication in response to Plaintiff’s July 25, 2005, amended

complaint. On the face of that complaint, Plaintiff named both

Sprint as well as George White as defendants. The bare

allegations of Plaintiff’s complaint are that Sprint is “a

California corporation, operating and doing business in the

County of Sacramento, in the State of California.” Pl’s. Compl.

¶ 3. There is no allegation in Plaintiff’s complaint regarding

the citizenship of George White. 

The Court must determine the existence of federal

jurisdiction solely by an examination of the plaintiff's case

without regard to the Defendant’s pleadings. Ritchey v. Upjohn

Drug Co., 139 F.3d 1313, 1318 (9th Cir. 1998). On the face of

Plaintiff’s complaint, there is no diversity jurisdiction. As

noted above, Sprint filed a motion for summary adjudication in

response to Plaintiff’s amended complaint but failed to bring to

the Court’s attention that it is not a citizen of California as

alleged by Plaintiff. Moreover, Sprint did not clarify George

White’s citizenship or seek to have him removed on the basis that

he is a sham defendant named solely to defeat diversity

jurisdiction.

Neither the operative pleadings or moving papers set forth a

basis for diversity jurisdiction. Sprint cannot, now, allege

that this Court was mistaken in remanding the purely state law

Case 2:03-cv-02616-MCE -PAN Document 26 Filed 10/20/05 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

claims to the state court based on lack of federal jurisdiction. 

CONCLUSION

For the reasons fully explained above, Sprint’s motion for

an immediate stay is DENIED. Sprint’s motion to reconsider will

remain on calendar to be heard in this Court at 9:00 a.m.,

November 14, 2005 unless otherwise modified by this Court.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: October 20, 2005

_____________________________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:03-cv-02616-MCE -PAN Document 26 Filed 10/20/05 Page 3 of 3