Lauricella v. Cordis Corporation Doc.

13
Case 4:07-cv-02016-SBA Document 13 Filed 05/29/2007 Page 1 of 3

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
2
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
3
4 JOSEPH LAURICELLA, No. C 07-02016 SBA (PR)
5 Plaintiff, ORDER VACATING DISMISSAL AND
6 v. REOPENING CASE
7 CORDIS CORPORATION,
8 Defendant.
/
9
10 Plaintiff Joseph Lauricella filed a pro se civil complaint which the Court dismissed and
For the Northern District of California

11 entered judgment on May 17, 2007. The complaint was dismissed because it appeared to the Court
United States District Court

12 to be a civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging claims against a private company,
13 which the Court determined did not meet the standards for cognizable claims under § 1983. After
14 the action was dismissed, Plaintiff filed a letter with the Court dated May 20, 2007 that persuades
15 the Court that the dismissal order and judgment should be vacated and the case should be reopened.
16 Plaintiff states in his letter that he never intended to sue Defendant Cordis Corporation under
17 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Instead, he claims that the Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this pro se
18 civil action on the basis of diversity of citizenship.
19 The district courts have original jurisdiction over a civil action where the matter in
20 controversy exceed $ 75,000 and the action is between citizens of different States. 28 U.S.C.
21 § 1332(a). For purposes of this statute, "a corporation shall be deemed to be a citizen of any State
22 by which it has been incorporated and of the State where it has its principal place of business . . . ."
23 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1).
24 Accordingly, the Court VACATES the May 17, 2007 Order of Dismissal and Judgment. In a
25 separate written Order, the Court will conduct another review of Plaintiff's civil complaint in order
26 to determine if Plaintiff establishes the existence of diversity jurisdiction. The Court will also
27 review Plaintiff's in forma pauperis application; therefore, its previous ruling of no filing fee being
28 due is also vacated.

Dockets.Justia.com
 Case 4:07-cv-02016-SBA Document 13 Filed 05/29/2007 Page 2 of 3

1 CONCLUSION
2 For the foregoing reasons, the Order of Dismissal and Judgment (docket nos. 10, 11) are
3 VACATED. The Clerk of the Court is directed to REOPEN this case and mark the previously
4 terminated motions (docket nos. 2, 5) as PENDING.
5 IT IS SO ORDERED.
6 DATED: 5/29/07
SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG
7 United States District Judge

8
9
10
For the Northern District of California

11
United States District Court

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
P:\PRO-SE\SBA\CR.07\Lauricella2016.vacateJUD.wpd
2
 Case 4:07-cv-02016-SBA Document 13 Filed 05/29/2007 Page 3 of 3

1
2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
3 FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
4
5 JOSEPH LAURICELLA,
Case Number: CV07-02016 SBA
6 Plaintiff,
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
7 v.

8 CORDIS CORPORATION et al,

9 Defendant.
/
10
For the Northern District of California

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. District
11 Court, Northern District of California.
United States District Court

12 That on May 29, 2007, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing said
copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by depositing said
13 envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery receptacle
located in the Clerk's office.
14
15
16 Joseph Lauricella 06022506
PFN Box 144
17 885 N San Pedro Street
San Jose, CA 95110
18
Dated: May 29, 2007
19 Richard W. Wieking, Clerk
By: LISA R CLARK, Deputy Clerk
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
P:\PRO-SE\SBA\CR.07\Lauricella2016.vacateJUD.wpd
3