ORDER DISMISSING CASE WITHOUT PREJUDICE FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION

RICHARD SEEBORG, District Judge.

Plaintiff Paul Mitchell, a California resident, filed suit in federal court asserting twelve claims for relief against defendants Harvey Wright, a Washington resident, Jennifer Wright, a California resident, and nominal defendant Helical Plane, Inc., a company incorporated in Washington State. The Complaint asserts diversity jurisdiction as the basis for federal jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a).

Federal subject matter jurisdiction founded in diversity requires complete diversity of citizenship and an amount in controversy in excess of $75,000. See Williams v. United Airlines, Inc., 500 F.3d 1019, 1025 (9th Cir. 2007) (citing Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Servs., Inc., 545 U.S. 546, 553 (2005)). Diversity is incomplete if any plaintiff is a citizen of the same state as any defendant. See Morris v. Princess Cruises, Inc., 236 F.3d 1061, 1067 (9th Cir. 2001). If a court determines at any time that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction due to the absence of complete diversity, it must dismiss the action. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). "[A] court may raise the question of subject matter jurisdiction, sua sponte, at any time during the pendency of the action." Snell v. Cleveland, Inc., 316 F.3d 822, 826 (9th Cir. 2002); see also United Investors Life Ins. Co. v. Waddell & Reed, Inc., 360 F.3d 960, 966 (9th Cir. 2004).

Here, plaintiff is a citizen of California. Defendant Jennifer Wright is also a California citizen. Consequently, complete diversity of citizenship is lacking and the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. The case is hereby dismissed without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.