Order Remanding Case for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction

DALE S. FISCHER, District Judge.

The Court previously issued an order to show cause why this case should not be dismissed for lack of diversity jurisdiction. Specifically, the Court suggested that Plaintiff The Regents of the University of California may be considered to be the State for the purposes of diversity. The Court has reviewed Defendant's response, and, while a good effort, the response is ultimately not persuasive.

The Regents of the University of California have been found to be an "arm" of the State of California for Eleventh Amendment purposes. See Doe v. Lawrence Livermore Nat'l Lab., 131 F.3d 836, 839 (9th Cir. 1997) (Eleventh Amendment analysis). While the Ninth Circuit has only stated, in dicta, that the Eleventh Amendment test and the diversity test are "similar," Ronwin v. Shapiro, 657 F.2d 1071, 1073 (9th Cir. 1981), the Court sees no reason that the results of the two tests should diverge unless there is a persuasive argument regarding the entity in question. The University of California is a state institution, funded by the state, and ultimately defended by the state. The only members of the 26-member Board of Regents who are not elected state officials or members appointed by the Governor of California — are the university president, two alumni association officials, and a single student member who is chosen by the other Regents. The Court acknowledges that the Regents can sue and be sued in their own name — if not, presumably this discussion would be unnecessary — can hold property in their own name and are organized as a separate corporate entity from the state. But these characteristics are not enough to suggest that the Court should diverge from the Ninth Circuit's Eleventh Amendment conclusion.

The case is REMANDED to the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles.

IT IS SO ORDERED.