Alexander v. Hilton Hotels Worldwide
- Haywood Gilliam
- 4:24-cv-08394
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Alexander v. Hilton Hotels Worldwide, Magistrate Judge Hixson ordered Liam Alexander to explain why his state-law injury case should not be dismissed for lack of federal jurisdiction.
Liam Alexander must respond to the jurisdiction order by December 17, 2024; Hilton Hotels Worldwide is the defendant in the case, which may be recommended for dismissal if Alexander does not respond.
What happened
Liam Alexander sued Hilton Hotels Worldwide, bringing one claim for personal injury. He said the claim was based on federal-question jurisdiction, even though he described it as a state-law tort claim and said both parties are California residents.
The court said federal courts may hear only cases authorized by the Constitution or federal law. It concluded that federal-question jurisdiction appeared unavailable and that diversity jurisdiction also appeared lacking based on the parties’ stated California residency.
In Alexander v. Hilton Hotels Worldwide, Magistrate Judge Thomas S. Hixson ordered Alexander to file a written response by December 17, 2024, explaining why the case should not be dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The order did not itself dismiss the case; it warned that failing to respond would lead to a recommendation of dismissal.
The detailed version
- Alexander v. Hilton Hotels Worldwide · No. 4:24-cv-08394
- Haywood Gilliam
- Dec. 3, 2024
Background
On October 23, 2024, Liam Alexander filed this case against Hilton Hotels Worldwide. The complaint asserted one claim for “personal injury.” Alexander stated that the parties are both residents of California and identified federal-question jurisdiction as the basis for the case.
Jurisdiction issue
The court explained that federal courts have limited authority and must independently determine whether subject-matter jurisdiction exists. It identified two possible bases for federal jurisdiction: federal-question jurisdiction, for claims arising under the Constitution, federal laws, or treaties; and diversity jurisdiction, which generally requires more than $75,000 in dispute and citizenship in different states.
The court stated that Alexander had brought a state-law tort claim and that he had said both parties were California residents. On that information, the court said jurisdiction “appears to be lacking.”
Order
The court ordered Alexander to show cause, meaning to explain in writing, why the case should not be dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. His response was due December 17, 2024. The court stated that failing to respond would result in a recommendation that the case be dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The order itself did not dismiss the case.
Judge
The order was signed by Thomas S. Hixson, United States Magistrate Judge.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.