Stone v. Popout Inc.
3:21-cv-02090-JD
N.D. Cal.May 12, 2021Background:
- Pro se plaintiff Jack Stone filed a complaint and IFP application alleging Shippo (dba Shippo, Inc.) arranged shipment of a surfboard and accessories to his residence in Sendai, Japan, and DHL acted as the carrier.
- Plaintiff alleges the surfboard arrived badly damaged and seeks reimbursement for purchase price, shipping charges, and an allegedly unauthorized $129 fee.
- Court granted IFP and reviewed the complaint sua sponte for subject-matter jurisdiction before ordering service.
- Plaintiff asserts the case meets diversity jurisdiction and lists the amount in controversy as $75,000.01; attached DHL claim requests $724.94 and plaintiff’s total asserted losses appear to be about $1,280.26.
- Complaint fails to allege Plaintiff’s U.S. citizenship or state domicile and does not adequately plead DHL’s citizenship; Shippo is alleged to be headquartered in California.
- Court concluded the complaint does not establish diversity jurisdiction and ordered plaintiff to show cause by May 26, 2021 why the case should not be dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Subject-matter jurisdiction (diversity) | Case satisfies diversity because plaintiff resides in Japan and defendants are linked to California; amount in controversy $75,000.01 | No responsive pleadings; court finds complaint lacks necessary citizenship and amount facts | Complaint does not adequately establish diversity; court ordered plaintiff to show cause or face dismissal |
| Plaintiff's citizenship/domicile | Plaintiff alleges residence in Japan (implying foreign residency) | N/A | Complaint fails to allege U.S. citizenship and state domicile; cannot be treated as a state citizen for §1332(a)(1) |
| Corporate citizenship of defendants | Shippo headquartered in San Francisco; DHL does business in SF | N/A | Corporate citizenship not sufficiently pleaded (must allege state of incorporation and principal place of business); DHL’s citizenship unspecified |
| Amount in controversy | Asserts $75,000.01 in complaint | Attached claim and pleaded damages total only about $1,280.26 | Amount in controversy not supported by the complaint; far below §1332 threshold |
Key Cases Cited:
- Stock W., Inc. v. Confederated Tribes, 873 F.2d 1221 (9th Cir. 1989) (federal courts are presumed to lack jurisdiction unless the contrary affirmatively appears)
- Caterpillar Inc. v. Lewis, 519 U.S. 61 (U.S. 1996) (diversity requires that the citizenship of each plaintiff be diverse from each defendant)
- Kantor v. Wellesley Galleries, Ltd., 704 F.2d 1088 (9th Cir. 1983) (the congressional grant of diversity jurisdiction is to be strictly construed)
- Co-Efficient Energy Sys. v. CSL Indus., Inc., 812 F.2d 556 (9th Cir. 1987) (corporate citizenship is determined by state of incorporation and principal place of business)
- Kanter v. Warner-Lambert Co., 265 F.3d 853 (9th Cir. 2001) (party invoking diversity should affirmatively allege actual citizenship; domicile governs individual citizenship)
- Newman-Green, Inc. v. Alfonzo-Larrain, 490 U.S. 826 (U.S. 1989) (natural person must be a U.S. citizen and domiciled in a state to be a state citizen for diversity)
- Louisiana Mun. Police Employees’ Ret. Sys. v. Wynn, 829 F.3d 1048 (9th Cir. 2016) (a U.S. citizen domiciled abroad is not a citizen of a state for diversity; §1332(a)(2) unavailable if Americans are on both sides of the case)