Thierry v. Albertson's Safeway, John Colgrove
- Vince Chhabria
- 3:25-cv-04122
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Thierry v. Albertson’s Safeway, Magistrate Judge Tse found the complaint lacked jurisdictional allegations, allowed amendment by June 27, and warned of a dismissal recommendation.
The order affects Chasya Theresa Thierry and the defendants because Thierry must amend her complaint to establish subject-matter jurisdiction or face a possible future recommendation of dismissal.
What happened
In Chasya Theresa Thierry v. Albertson’s Safeway, John Colgrove, et al., the court screened Thierry’s complaint after granting her application to proceed under the court’s fee-waiver process. Thierry asserted four claims under California statutes against individual, corporate, and partnership defendants.
The court found that the complaint did not establish federal-question jurisdiction because its claims arose under state law. It also found that Thierry had not adequately alleged the parties’ citizenship for diversity jurisdiction, although her requested $100,000 exceeded the required amount in controversy.
Magistrate Judge Alex G. Tse allowed Thierry to file an amended complaint by June 27, 2025. Judge Tse stated that if she did not amend, or if the amended complaint still failed to establish subject-matter jurisdiction, he would recommend that a district judge dismiss the case.
The detailed version
- Thierry v. Albertson's Safeway, John Colgrove · No. 3:25-cv-04122
- Vince Chhabria
- June 9, 2025
Background
The court had granted Chasya Theresa Thierry’s application to proceed under the court’s fee-waiver process. It then screened her complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and found the complaint deficient.
Thierry asserted four claims under California Civil Code sections 1714 and 2338, California Insurance Code section 790.03, and California Business and Professions Code section 6106. The court identified Albertson’s Safeway, John Colgrove, and other defendants in the caption. The opinion states that Thierry named four individual defendants, two corporate defendants, and one limited liability partnership.
Subject-Matter Jurisdiction
The court explained that federal courts have limited jurisdiction and that the complaint needed to establish either federal-question jurisdiction, diversity jurisdiction, or another applicable basis for federal jurisdiction.
The complaint did not establish federal-question jurisdiction because all four asserted claims were based on California law. The court also found that Thierry had not adequately pleaded diversity jurisdiction. She did not identify the states where the individual defendants were domiciled; the states where the corporate defendants were incorporated and maintained their principal places of business; or the states where the limited liability partnership’s partners were domiciled. The court noted that addresses in Idaho and Kentucky were listed for corporate defendants but were not alleged to be their states of incorporation or principal places of business.
The court stated that the amount-in-controversy requirement was satisfied because Thierry sought $100,000, excluding medical and attorney’s fees. But she still needed to identify each defendant’s state or states of citizenship and show complete diversity. The court warned that diversity jurisdiction would be unavailable if Thierry were a California citizen and any defendant also were a California citizen.
Disposition
The court did not dismiss the case in this order. It allowed Thierry to file an amended complaint by June 27, 2025. The court stated that if she did not file one, or if the amended complaint failed to establish subject-matter jurisdiction, the undersigned would recommend that a district judge dismiss the case.
The order was signed by Alex G. Tse, United States Magistrate Judge.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.