Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
N.D. Cal.Procedural orderFiled June 11, 2023

Wright v. Shell Gas Station

Judge
Laurel Beeler
Docket
3:22-cv-03594
Court
U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
Pages
3
Civil ProcedurePro Se
In one sentence

In Wright v. Shell Gas Station, Judge Beeler denied joining Mila Cabasen because her citizenship was unproven and could eliminate diversity jurisdiction.

Who this affects

The ruling affected Donald Leon Wright’s request to add Mila Cabasen as a defendant and the ability to maintain diversity jurisdiction in the case.

What happened

In Wright v. Shell Gas Station, Donald Leon Wright, representing himself, asked to add Mila Cabasen as a defendant. Shell did not oppose the request but said it had no knowledge of anyone by that name.

Wright had identified Cabasen in a related state-court case as a principal at the Shell station and had used the station’s California address as her address. Because Wright is a California citizen, adding another California citizen could destroy the complete diversity required for this federal case.

The court denied the motion because Wright did not establish Cabasen’s citizenship, leaving it unclear whether adding her would eliminate diversity jurisdiction. Judge Laurel Beeler signed the order on June 11, 2023.

The detailed version

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

Case
Wright v. Shell Gas Station · No. 3:22-cv-03594
Judge
Laurel Beeler
Date
June 11, 2023

Background

Donald Leon Wright, who represented himself, moved to join Mila Cabasen as a defendant in this diversity case. The defendant filed a statement saying it did not oppose the motion but had no knowledge of an individual by that name.

Wright had filed a related state-court case naming Cabasen as a defendant and describing her as a “key principal” at the Shell gas station where he allegedly was shot. In that complaint, Wright listed the gas station’s address in San Leandro, California, as Cabasen’s address. The opinion states that Wright is a citizen of California.

Jurisdiction and ruling

The court explained that diversity jurisdiction requires opposing parties to be citizens of different states, and that every plaintiff must be a citizen of a different state from every defendant. The court also noted that the claims were based on state law, so federal-question jurisdiction was unavailable.

Because Wright is a California citizen, the court would lack diversity jurisdiction if Cabasen were also a California citizen. The court said Cabasen was likely a California citizen, but in any event Wright had not shown that she was not. The court therefore denied the motion to join Cabasen. The order was signed by Laurel Beeler, United States Magistrate Judge.

The authoritative version

Read the full 3-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.