Background:

• Plaintiff Lloyd’s of London Syndicate 2987 filed this action invoking federal diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332.
• Plaintiff alleges it is a citizen of England.
• Defendants (PCL Homes LLC et al.) appear to include citizens of Washington state and of Canada.
• Section 1332 requires the amount in controversy to exceed $75,000 and proper diversity of citizenship between the parties.
• Ninth Circuit precedent holds that if one side consists only of foreign parties while the other side includes both foreign and U.S. citizens, §1332 does not authorize jurisdiction.
• The court, acting sua sponte, ordered Plaintiff to show cause by November 22, 2023 why the case should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, warning that failure to do so will result in dismissal.

Issues:

Key Cases Cited

• Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp., 546 U.S. 500 (2006) (courts must independently confirm subject-matter jurisdiction)
• Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375 (1994) (federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction)
• Yokeno v. Sawako Sekiguchi, 754 F.3d 649 (9th Cir.) (Article III source of diversity jurisdiction)
• Transure, Inc. v. Marsh & McLennan, Inc., 766 F.2d 1297 (9th Cir.) (foreign corporation on one side does not automatically defeat diversity)
• Craig v. Atl. Richfield Co., 19 F.3d 472 (9th Cir.) (rule that mixed domestic/foreign parties on one side vs. only foreign parties on the other falls outside §1332)
• Faysound Ltd. v. United Coconut Chems., Inc., 878 F.2d 290 (9th Cir.) (same rule regarding mixed-party compositions and diversity)
• Nike, Inc. v. Comercial Iberica de Exclusivas Deportivas, S.A., 20 F.3d 987 (9th Cir.) (illustrative application of diversity principles)
• Baylay v. Etihad Airways P.J.S.C., 881 F.3d 1032 (7th Cir.) (discussing limits of diversity when foreign and domestic parties are mixed)
• Harris v. Rand, 682 F.3d 846 (9th Cir.) (procedural requirement for responding to an order to show cause on jurisdiction)