Aiken v. Snee, 2:15-cv-00227

Patricia Aiken, a pro se plaintiff, alleges she worked for Thomas Snee and companies (Ionetics, Angioprim, Cardioprim) from Jan 2010 for ~3.5 years based on oral promises that Snee would will Cardioprim to her; she claims she worked largely without compensation and received housing, a car, and sporadic small cash payments.
Aiken alleges services included marketing, managing an herb/encapsulation room, computer/plane/RV maintenance, and personal care for Snee; she asserts unpaid labor and requests $200,000 plus punitive damages for breach of contract and unjust enrichment.
Relevant events include Snee’s hospitalizations and alleged cognitive decline in mid-2013, unfulfilled promises to make Aiken an account signer, and alleged failure to pay certain obligations that led to collections against Aiken.
Aiken filed to proceed in forma pauperis; the magistrate judge granted IFP status after reviewing her affidavit showing limited means.
The court screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) and Rule 8/Iqbal/Twombly standards to determine whether it stated a plausible claim and whether the federal court has subject-matter jurisdiction.
The magistrate judge concluded the complaint fails to establish complete diversity because domicile/allegations about two individual defendants (Snee and Ngyen) are insufficient or contradict diversity requirements, and therefore recommended dismissal with prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Aiken may proceed in forma pauperis	Aiken submitted affidavit showing limited income and debts	No opposition noted	Granted — IFP allowed under 28 U.S.C. §1915(a)
Whether the complaint invokes federal question jurisdiction	The claim is state-law breach of contract	Not applicable; complaint asserts no federal question	No federal question — claim arises under state law
Whether diversity jurisdiction exists (amount and complete diversity)	Asserts $200,000 damages and alleges non-Nevada citizenship of corporate and individual defendants	Court finds corporate defendants plausibly non-Nevada, but domicile allegations for Snee and Ngyen are insufficient or indicate Nevada residency; statutory treatment of permanent residents also undermines Aiken’s theory	Amount in controversy met, but complete diversity not established; subject-matter jurisdiction lacking
Whether dismissal should be with prejudice or leave to amend	Aiken sought relief and requested a hearing	Court concluded jurisdictional defects cannot be cured by amendment (time-of-filing rule)	Recommended dismissal with prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction

Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972) (pro se pleadings held to less stringent standards)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (plausibility pleadings standard)
Bell Atl. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (pleading must cross line from conceivable to plausible)
Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375 (1994) (federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction)
Hertz Corp. v. Friend, 559 U.S. 77 (2010) (domicile inquiry for diversity jurisdiction)
Caterpillar Inc. v. Lewis, 519 U.S. 61 (1996) (corporate citizenship for diversity jurisdiction)
Grupo Dataflux v. Atlas Global Grp., L.P., 541 U.S. 567 (2004) (jurisdictional facts judged at time of filing; defects not cured by later events)
Geographic Expeditions, Inc. v. Estate of Lhotka, 599 F.3d 1102 (9th Cir. 2010) (amount in controversy controls if made in good faith)