Sweeney v. Christner
5:13-cv-02817
N.D. Cal.Nov 5, 2013Background
- MLM company with a pyramid-like structure; Sweeney promoted BCs for Christner and planned to swap to Robinson BC under an oral agreement.
- Christner would sell her current BC and purchase Robinson BC; LaFrance would hold the BC in trust due to policy against multiple BCs.
- Sweeney alleges Christner breached by failing to actively manage and promote the BC, causing lost commissions and bonuses.
- Christner challenges service of process as insufficient; both defendants challenge subject-matter jurisdiction; plaintiff seeks judicial notice.
- Court considers service validity, diversity of citizenship, and amount in controversy; seeks leave to amend if needed.
- Court grants motion to dismiss with leave to amend; process of service deemed valid for Christner; diversity insufficiently pled; amount in controversy alleged to exceed $75,000.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether service of process was valid under Rule 4(e). | Sweeney argues service valid via signed return; presumption of validity. | Christner argues service may be defective due to misdescription at residence. | Service valid; complaint not dismissed on service grounds. |
| Whether complete diversity exists under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(2). | Sweeney asserts citizenships create complete diversity. | Defendants contend lack of explicit citizenships; diversity not shown. | Diversity not properly pleaded; dismissed with leave to amend. |
| Whether the amount in controversy requirement is satisfied. | Alleges damages exceed $75,000, with potential bonuses totaling substantial amounts. | Defendants may argue speculative damages. | Plaintiff adequately alleged amount in controversy; not dismissed on this ground. |
Key Cases Cited
- Omni Capital Int'l, Ltd. v. Wolff & Co., 484 U.S. 97 (U.S. 1987) (insufficient service can lead to dismissal; burden on plaintiff to prove service valid)
- Brockmeyer v. May, 383 F.3d 798 (9th Cir. 2004) (signed return of service constitutes prima facie evidence of valid service)
- S.E.C. v. Internet Solutions for Business, Inc., 509 F.3d 1161 (9th Cir. 2007) (proof of service credibility; not easily overcome)
- Limon-Hernandez v. Lumbreras, 171 F.R.D. 271 (D. Or. 1997) (even if service recipient differs, service may satisfy Rule 4(e)(2))
- Kanter v. Warner-Lambert Co., 265 F.3d 853 (9th Cir. 2000) (complete diversity required; citizenship, not residency, controls)
- Whitmire v. Victus Ltd. t/a Master Design Furniture, 212 F.3d 885 (5th Cir. 2000) (residence vs. citizenship distinction for diversity)
- Steigleder v. McQuesten, 198 U.S. 141 (1905) (distinction between residence and citizenship for jurisdictional purposes)
- Crum v. Circus Circus Enterprises, 231 F.3d 1129 (9th Cir. 2000) (jurisdictional amount must be claimed in good faith; legal certainty standard)