Wexler v. Starbucks Coffee Corporation
- Yvonne Rogers
- 4:25-cv-00349
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Marshall Wexler v. Starbucks Corporation, Judge Rogers ordered Wexler to explain why the case should not be remanded because diversity jurisdiction may be lacking.
The order directly affects Marshall Wexler, who must address the court's jurisdictional concern and meet the stated briefing deadlines. Starbucks Corporation and John Doe Trucking Company may respond after Wexler files his brief. The case was not finally remanded or dismissed by this order.
What happened
Marshall Wexler sued Starbucks Corporation and John Doe Trucking Company. In his complaint, Wexler described himself as an individual residing in Brazil and formerly a California resident.
The court questioned whether it has diversity jurisdiction, which allows certain disputes involving citizens of different states or countries. The court explained that a U.S. citizen domiciled outside the United States may not qualify as a citizen of a state or a foreign country for this purpose.
Judge Yvonne Rogers ordered Wexler to file a brief within 21 days explaining why the case should not be remanded. The order did not remand the case at that time; it warned that failing to respond would be treated as a concession that subject matter jurisdiction is lacking and would result in dismissal.
The detailed version
- Wexler v. Starbucks Coffee Corporation · No. 4:25-cv-00349
- Yvonne Rogers
- July 2, 2025
Background
Marshall Wexler filed a complaint for compensatory damages against Starbucks Corporation and John Doe Trucking Company. The complaint states that Wexler was formerly a resident of California and now resides in Brazil.
Jurisdictional concern
The court issued an order to show cause, meaning it required Wexler to explain why the case should not be remanded for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Subject matter jurisdiction is the court's legal power to hear a case.
The court focused on diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. It explained that a U.S. citizen domiciled outside the United States is not a citizen of a state for purposes of § 1332(a)(1) and is not a citizen of a foreign state for purposes of § 1332(a)(2). The court therefore directed Wexler to address whether he is a U.S. citizen domiciled abroad and whether the court has diversity jurisdiction.
Order and deadlines
Wexler may file a written brief of no more than five pages within 21 days of the order. The defendants may respond within 14 days, also using no more than five pages, and Wexler may reply within seven days, with a five-page limit.
The court did not remand or dismiss the case in this order. It stated that Wexler's failure to respond on time would be interpreted as a concession that subject matter jurisdiction is lacking, resulting in dismissal. Judge Yvonne Rogers signed the order on July 2, 2025.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.