2:23-cv-03914
C.D. Cal.Aug 30, 2023Background
- Plaintiff Vivek Shah, proceeding pro se, sued Blueground US, Inc. and obtained a clerk's entry of default; he then moved for default judgment.
- Shah alleged wrongful/discriminatory denial of a one-month apartment rental and claimed $4,748.87 in out‑of‑pocket damages plus emotional distress, punitive damages, and injunctive relief.
- Shah pleaded Illinois as his principal residence but described himself as a "digital nomad" and submitted a declaration showing residence in 18 different locations (including foreign countries) around the time of filing.
- Defendant is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in New York and did not appear to oppose the motion.
- The Court questioned subject‑matter jurisdiction (diversity and amount‑in‑controversy), requested supplemental briefing, reviewed Shah’s submission, and found jurisdictional defects.
- The Court denied the default‑judgment motion and dismissed the action for lack of subject‑matter jurisdiction (without leave to amend in federal court; dismissal without prejudice to refiling in state court).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether diversity jurisdiction exists (citizenship) | Shah asserts Illinois residency/principal place of residence | No opposing active argument (default); facts show Shah is itinerant/digital nomad | Court: Shah failed to establish domicile in any state; may be "stateless" for § 1332 purposes, so diversity lacking |
| Whether amount‑in‑controversy meets $75,000 | $4,748.87 actual damages + speculative emotional distress (2×) + punitive (9×) + injunctive relief to reach threshold | No opposing active argument; Court evaluated plausibility | Court: Plaintiff's calculations speculative; even fully credited, amount in controversy ≈ $56,986.44 and injunctive value speculative — insufficient |
| Whether Shah can sue to enforce Cal. Code Regs. tit. 2, § 12269(a)(5) via Cal. Gov't Code § 12989.1 (private right of action) | Shah relies on § 12989.1 and § 12989.2 to support damages and punitive relief under the regulation | No defendant contest; court examined authority and precedent | Court: Could not identify controlling authority recognizing a private damage action to enforce that regulation; court skeptical such a private right exists and left the question to California courts |
| Whether default judgment should be entered | Requests entry of default judgment based on clerk's default and claimed damages | Defendant defaulted; no responsive defense presented | Court: Denied default judgment and dismissed case for lack of subject‑matter jurisdiction (without federal leave to amend; without prejudice to state filing) |
Key Cases Cited
- Page v. Democratic Nat'l Comm., 2 F.4th 630 (7th Cir. 2021) (recognizing that some U.S. citizens may lack citizenship of any state for diversity purposes)
- D.B. Zwirn Special Opportunities Fund, L.P. v. Mehrotra, 661 F.3d 124 (1st Cir. 2011) (same principle: U.S. citizens can be stateless for § 1332)
- Lew v. Moss, 797 F.2d 747 (9th Cir. 1986) (domicile requires fixed habitation and intent to remain)
- Grupo Dataflux v. Atlas Global Grp., L.P., 541 U.S. 567 (2004) (citizenship for diversity is judged at time of filing)
- Perez v. K & B Transp., Inc., 967 F.3d 651 (7th Cir. 2020) (analysis of domicile for highly mobile workers)
- Owens v. Huntling, 115 F.2d 160 (9th Cir. 1940) (definition of domicile referenced for diversity analysis)
- McCracken v. Murphy, 328 F. Supp. 2d 530 (E.D. Pa. 2004) (applying statelessness concept to itinerant plaintiffs)
- Wasson v. Northrup Worldwide Aircraft Servs., Inc., 443 F. Supp. 400 (W.D. Tex. 1978) (discussing diversity complications for consistently mobile individuals)