Fox v. Fox
- Nathanael Cousins
- 5:25-cv-05452
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Fox v. Fox, Judge Cousins ordered self-represented Plaintiff Richard B. Fox to establish federal diversity jurisdiction or amend his complaint.
Richard B. Fox, who must provide additional jurisdictional information or amend his complaint; the eight named individual and organizational defendants are parties to the case.
What happened
In Fox v. Fox, Richard B. Fox, representing himself, sued eight individual and organizational defendants, alleging elder financial abuse under a California statute. He claimed the parties were citizens of different states.
The court said the complaint did not provide enough information to determine whether all opposing parties were citizens of different states. It explained that residency is not the same as citizenship and that the complaint lacked required information about several individuals and organizations.
Judge Cousins ordered Fox to file an amended complaint or explain in writing by July 23, 2025, how federal jurisdiction exists. The court warned that failing to do so may result in dismissal, but it did not dismiss the case or decide the elder-abuse allegations.
The detailed version
- Fox v. Fox · No. 5:25-cv-05452
- Nathanael Cousins
- July 2, 2025
Background
On June 30, 2025, self-represented plaintiff Richard B. Fox filed a complaint against eight individual and organizational defendants. The complaint alleges elder financial abuse in violation of a California statute. Fox asserted that federal diversity jurisdiction existed because the case was between citizens of different states.
Jurisdictional problems identified by the court
Federal district courts have limited subject-matter jurisdiction, meaning they may hear only cases authorized by federal law. The court explained that a case may come within federal jurisdiction through a federal-law claim or diversity jurisdiction. Diversity jurisdiction generally requires complete diversity of citizenship between the parties.
The court found that the complaint did not adequately allege complete diversity. It identified these problems:
- Fox did not allege the citizenship of any party. - For Fox, David K. Fox, Margene B. Fox, and Allison Fox-Greene, the complaint alleged states of residency, but residency alone does not establish citizenship. - The complaint gave Jay C. Johnson's last known residential address, which also did not establish citizenship. - The complaint provided no usable citizenship information for William D. Pickell and Roger D. Quern. - For Lakeland Management Services, the complaint alleged only that it was a Florida corporation and did not state its principal place of business. - For Gerald C. Fox Foundation, the complaint did not state its state of incorporation or whether it was unincorporated.
Order
The court ordered Fox to file an amended complaint or show cause in writing by July 23, 2025. He must provide enough information to establish diversity jurisdiction or another basis for federal subject-matter jurisdiction. The court stated that failure to do so may result in dismissal of the case. The order did not decide the elder financial abuse allegations or otherwise resolve the merits of the claims.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.