Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
N.D. Cal.Procedural orderFiled Dec. 12, 2019

Zhu v. Ge

Judge
Susan Illston
Docket
3:19-cv-08028-SI
Court
U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
Pages
1
Civil ProcedurePro Se
In one sentence

In Zhu v. Ge, Judge Illston ordered Zhu to explain why the case should not be dismissed for lack of diversity jurisdiction.

Who this affects

Pro se plaintiff Xiaodan Zhu, who was required to address whether the federal court had diversity jurisdiction before the case could proceed.

What happened

In Zhu v. Ge, pro se plaintiff Xiaodan Zhu claimed that the federal court had diversity jurisdiction because the parties lived in different states and the damages exceeded $75,000.

The complaint listed Zhu's address in San Francisco and Gary Ge's address in Santa Clara, both in California. It also listed Yushan Duan's phone number with a 408 area code, which the court said is associated with San Jose, California.

The court ordered Zhu to file a written explanation by January 10, 2020, addressing diversity jurisdiction and why the case should not be dismissed. Judge Susan Illston did not dismiss the case in this order.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Zhu v. Ge · No. 3:19-cv-08028-SI
Judge
Susan Illston
Date
Dec. 12, 2019

Background

Pro se plaintiff Xiaodan Zhu filed this action on December 9, 2019. Zhu's complaint alleged that the court had diversity jurisdiction because no plaintiff lived in the same state as any defendant and the amount of damages exceeded $75,000.

Jurisdictional concern

The court questioned whether diversity jurisdiction existed based on information in the complaint's caption. Zhu's address was listed as 5941 California Street, San Francisco, California. Defendant Gary Ge's address was listed as 1992 Bowers Avenue, Santa Clara, California. The complaint also listed defendant Yushan Duan's phone number with a 408 area code, which the court stated is associated with San Jose, California. Based on those details, the court stated that it did not appear to have diversity jurisdiction.

Order

The court ordered Zhu to show in writing why the action should not be dismissed for lack of federal jurisdiction. Zhu was ordered to file a brief concerning diversity jurisdiction by January 10, 2020. The order did not itself dismiss the action. Judge Susan Illston signed the order.

The authoritative version

Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.