Shing v. Clovis Oncology, Inc.
- Maxine Chesney
- 3:19-cv-04658
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Shing v. Clovis Oncology, Judge Chesney dismissed the action for missing diversity facts but allowed amendment.
Dr. Mona Shing, Clovis Oncology, Inc., and Ann Bozeman; the action was dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, with permission for Shing to amend.
What happened
In Shing v. Clovis Oncology, Inc., Dr. Mona Shing brought five state-law claims against Clovis Oncology, Inc. and Ann Bozeman. She claimed federal jurisdiction because the parties were citizens of different states and the amount in dispute exceeded $75,000.
The court found that the pleadings did not provide the required citizenship facts for Shing, Bozeman, or Clovis. It dismissed the action for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, but allowed Shing to file a second amended complaint by December 20, 2019, if she could allege facts showing that the parties were citizens of different states.
Judge Maxine M. Chesney also continued the case-management conference from December 20, 2019, to January 31, 2020, and required a joint case-management statement by January 24, 2020.
The detailed version
- Shing v. Clovis Oncology, Inc. · No. 3:19-cv-04658
- Maxine Chesney
- Dec. 3, 2019
Background
Dr. Mona Shing asserted five state-law claims against Clovis Oncology, Inc., identified as her former employer, and Ann Bozeman, identified as a Clovis employee. Shing's initial complaint and First Amended Complaint both alleged that the court had original jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1), which provides jurisdiction over disputes between citizens of different states when more than $75,000 is in controversy.
Jurisdictional Defects
The court explained that diversity of citizenship must exist when the complaint is filed. Neither pleading stated the state where Shing was domiciled on August 12, 2019, or the state where Bozeman was domiciled on that date. The pleadings also did not state Clovis's state of incorporation or provide enough facts to establish the state of its principal place of business. Although Shing alleged that Clovis's headquarters was in Boulder, Colorado, the court found that she did not allege facts showing that the headquarters was the corporation's principal place of business under the applicable legal standard.
The court found Shing's allegation that the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000 sufficient at this stage, based on her allegations that she had been a Clovis Senior Vice President and had been terminated approximately twenty months before filing the action.
Ruling
The court dismissed the action for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3). It allowed Shing to file a Second Amended Complaint by December 20, 2019, if she could allege facts supporting diversity jurisdiction. The court also continued the case-management conference to January 31, 2020, at 10:30 a.m., and required a joint case-management statement by January 24, 2020.
Judge Maxine M. Chesney signed the order on December 3, 2019.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.