Silver v. Tobias & Associates Inc.
- Jeffrey White
- 4:20-cv-07382
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Silver v. Tobias & Associates Inc., Judge White ordered Neil Silver to show CAFA diversity and vacated the motion-to-dismiss hearing.
Neil Silver must provide a written showing concerning CAFA minimal diversity by March 22, 2021. Tobias & Associates Inc.’s motion to dismiss remains unresolved, and its March 26, 2021 hearing was vacated.
What happened
In Neil Silver v. Tobias & Associates Inc., Neil Silver amended his complaint and said the federal court had jurisdiction under federal-question law and the Class Action Fairness Act. Tobias & Associates Inc. questioned whether federal-question jurisdiction existed.
The court said Silver had not adequately shown the citizenship difference required for Class Action Fairness Act jurisdiction. Silver alleged that he lived in Marin County, California, while describing Tobias & Associates Inc. as a Florida corporation, but the court explained that residence alone does not establish citizenship.
Judge Jeffrey S. White ordered Silver to explain in writing by March 22, 2021, whether the required citizenship difference exists. The court vacated the March 26 hearing on the motion to dismiss and said it would issue a written ruling later.
The detailed version
- Silver v. Tobias & Associates Inc. · No. 4:20-cv-07382
- Jeffrey White
- Mar. 15, 2021
Background
Neil Silver filed a First Amended Complaint. He alleged that the court had federal-question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and also invoked jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (CAFA), 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2). Tobias & Associates Inc. challenged whether federal-question jurisdiction existed, and its motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint was pending.
CAFA Jurisdiction
The court explained that a party invoking CAFA must establish, among other requirements, “minimal diversity.” Minimal diversity can be shown when at least one class member is a citizen of a different state than at least one defendant. The court emphasized that a person’s citizenship is based on domicile, not merely residence, and that allegations about residence alone are insufficient.
Silver alleged that he was a natural person residing in Marin County, California, and that Tobias & Associates Inc. was a Florida corporation. The court held that Silver’s allegation about his residence was insufficient to establish his citizenship. Because the allegations were inadequate, the court could not determine whether minimal diversity existed or whether CAFA jurisdiction was available.
Order
The court ordered Silver to show in writing no later than March 22, 2021, that the minimal diversity required for CAFA jurisdiction exists. The court also found that the motion-to-dismiss matter could be decided without oral argument and vacated the hearing set for March 26, 2021. It stated that a written ruling on the motion to dismiss would issue later. The court did not decide the motion to dismiss in this order.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.