Orthwein v. Medina

Background

Jennifer Orthwein filed the case against Felicia Medina and alleged that the court had diversity jurisdiction because Orthwein was domiciled in Alameda County, California, while Medina was allegedly domiciled in Hawaii. Medina later filed a motion to compel arbitration and disputed that diversity jurisdiction existed, stating that she actually resided in Oakland, California.

Medina submitted a declaration under penalty of perjury stating that she was domiciled in Oakland when the complaint was filed, intended to remain domiciled there, owned property there, was registered to vote there, held a California driver’s license, and worked only for her firm in Oakland. She also explained that she had temporarily lived in Hawaii in 2021.

Jurisdictional Discovery

Orthwein argued that Medina’s motion to compel arbitration was premature if the court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction and requested early, expedited discovery concerning Medina’s domicile. The court acknowledged the request but found that Orthwein identified nothing suggesting that Medina was domiciled outside California when the complaint was filed. The court also found it unclear what contradictory evidence discovery could produce in light of Medina’s sworn statements.

Ruling

The court found that Medina’s declaration was compelling evidence that she was a California resident when the case began. Because both parties were domiciled in California, diversity jurisdiction did not exist. The court dismissed the case without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and directed the Clerk of the Court to close the case.

The opinion does not state a ruling on Medina’s motion to compel arbitration.