Kleidman v. Murphy
- Haywood Gilliam
- 4:22-cv-06355
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Kleidman v. Murphy, Judge Cousins ordered Kleidman to explain his domicile or face possible dismissal for lack of federal jurisdiction.
Peter Kleidman, whose federal case was required to be clarified because the court questioned whether diversity jurisdiction existed; the defendants were not required to respond while the order was pending.
What happened
In Kleidman v. Murphy, Peter Kleidman filed a federal lawsuit against Bernie Murphy and others. The court said his complaint did not identify his state of domicile, and his response that he was a resident of New England was insufficient.
The court explained that diversity jurisdiction requires complete diversity of citizenship, which depends on each person’s permanent home rather than a general region. The court also noted that the complaint listed a Stamford, Connecticut address while the electronic court record listed a Beaverton, Oregon address, creating uncertainty.
Judge Cousins ordered Kleidman to show in writing by December 19, 2022, why the case should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The court did not dismiss the case in this order, and defendants were not required to respond while the order was pending.
The detailed version
- Kleidman v. Murphy · No. 4:22-cv-06355
- Haywood Gilliam
- Dec. 5, 2022
Background
Peter Kleidman filed the action in federal court on October 21, 2022, against Bernie Murphy and others. The court previously ordered him to explain why the case should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Kleidman responded that he was “a resident of New England.”
Jurisdiction issue
The court explained that federal courts have limited jurisdiction. The complaint appeared to rely on diversity jurisdiction, which generally requires that all plaintiffs be citizens of different states from all defendants. For an individual, citizenship is based on domicile—the person’s permanent home where the person intends to remain or return—not on a general geographic region.
The court said Kleidman still had not identified his state of domicile. It also noted that the complaint listed an address in Stamford, Connecticut, while the electronic court record listed an address in Beaverton, Oregon. The court stated that this ambiguity required clarification for both the court and the defendants. The opinion also said that Kleidman had not pleaded the domicile of Defendant Leslie Quist.
Order
The court ordered Kleidman to show cause—meaning to explain in writing—why the action should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. He was ordered to provide the location of his present domicile by December 19, 2022. The court did not dismiss the action in this order. Because Kleidman was not represented by counsel, the court noted that he could seek help from the Federal Pro Se Program. Defendants were not required to respond to the complaint while the order was pending.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.