Espinoza v. Warner Music Group Corp.

Background

Darin Espinoza and Donovan Thomas brought claims for breach of contract, breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing, and declaratory judgment against Prakazrel Samuel Michel, professionally known as Pras and doing business as Rat Pack Entertainment, Incorporated, and against Warner Music Group Corp. The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, but they did not file proof that the defendants had been served. The defendants did not respond or otherwise appear.

The court previously issued two orders requiring the plaintiffs to explain in writing why the case should not be dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The plaintiffs did not respond to either order or file anything else on the docket.

Jurisdiction

The amended complaint asserted federal-question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because of an alleged commercial transaction. The court concluded that the plaintiffs brought no federal claims, and a request for a declaratory judgment under the federal Declaratory Judgment Act does not independently create federal jurisdiction.

The court therefore considered diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. For individual parties, the complaint alleged only residences: Espinoza was alleged to reside in Idaho, Thomas in New York, and Pras in Florida. The court explained that residence alone does not establish citizenship. The complaint did not state whether these individuals were United States citizens or domiciled in the listed states.

The court also explained that complete diversity requires every plaintiff to be a citizen of a different state from every defendant. The complaint alleged that Warner Music Group was incorporated under Delaware law and registered to do business in New York, but it did not allege the corporation’s principal place of business. The court stated that the allegations therefore did not allow it to determine whether complete diversity existed and that complete diversity appeared to be lacking because Thomas was alleged to reside in New York while Warner Music Group was alleged to be registered to do business there.

Disposition

The court dismissed the amended complaint without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction because the plaintiffs failed to respond to the orders to show cause. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the case. The order did not decide the merits of the contract, good-faith-and-fair-dealing, or declaratory-judgment claims.