Kleidman v. Murphy
- Haywood Gilliam
- 4:22-cv-06355
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Kleidman v. Murphy, Judge Gilliam ordered Kleidman to explain why the complaint should not be dismissed for lack of diversity jurisdiction.
Peter Kleidman, who was required to address whether the court had diversity jurisdiction; the defendants were not required to respond while the order was pending.
What happened
In Kleidman v. Murphy, Peter Kleidman filed a federal lawsuit on October 21, 2022, and claimed that the court had jurisdiction because the parties were citizens of different states.
The complaint did not identify Kleidman’s domicile or defendant Leslie Quist’s domicile. Because that information was missing, the court could not determine whether all plaintiffs and defendants were citizens of different states or whether diversity jurisdiction existed.
Judge Gilliam ordered Kleidman to explain in writing by November 16, 2022, why the case should not be dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The defendants did not have to respond to the complaint while the order was pending.
The detailed version
- Kleidman v. Murphy · No. 4:22-cv-06355
- Haywood Gilliam
- Nov. 2, 2022
Background
Peter Kleidman filed the action in federal court on October 21, 2022. He relied on diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Diversity jurisdiction generally requires that every plaintiff be a citizen of a different state from every defendant and that more than $75,000 be at issue.
Jurisdictional Concern
The court found that the complaint’s description of the parties was incomplete. It did not identify Kleidman’s domicile, and it also did not identify defendant Leslie Quist’s domicile. Because of those omissions, the court could not determine whether complete diversity existed between Kleidman and the defendants.
Order
The court issued an order to show cause, meaning it required Kleidman to explain why the case should not be dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Kleidman had to provide that explanation in writing by November 16, 2022. The court stated that the defendants were not required to respond to the complaint while the order was pending. The order did not itself dismiss the complaint.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.