Chenavo v. BMW of North America, LLC.

1
26-cv-1160-AJB-BJW
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
MICHAEL CHENAVO, an individual,
Plaintiff,
v.
BMW OF NORTH AMERICA, LLC, a
Delaware Limited Liability Company,
Defendant.
Case No.: 26-cv-1160-AJB-BJW
ORDER DISCHARGING ORDER TO
SHOW CAUSE
In light of Plaintiff’s response to the Court’s Show Cause Order (Doc. No. 4), the
Court DISCHARGES the Order to Show Cause.1
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 11, 2026
1 The Court notes that, although Plaintiff’s OSC response claims “[i]In the Complaint, Plaintiff alleges
that he is a citizen of California,” the Complaint does not in fact allege Plaintiff’s citizenship. The
Complaint alleges Plaintiff resides in San Diego, California. (See Doc. No. 1 ¶ 3 (“Plaintiff, Michael
Chenavo is an individual residing in the County of San Diego, State of California.”). “But the diversity
jurisdiction statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1332, speaks of citizenship, not of residency.” Kanter v. Warner-Lambert
Co., 265 F.3d 853, 857 (9th Cir. 2001); Ehrman v. Cox Commc’ns, Inc., 932 F.3d 1223, 1227 (9th Cir.
2019) (“[R]esidency is not equivalent to citizenship.”). “A person residing in a given state is not
necessarily domiciled there[] and thus is not necessarily a citizen of that state.” Kanter, 265 F.3d at 857.
Despite this deficiency, the Court will construe the OSC response as an allegation of Plaintiff’s citizenship.
Case 3:26-cv-01160-AJB-BJW Document 5 Filed 03/11/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
1 of 1