ORDER

JAMES C. MAHAN, District Judge.

Presently before the court is counterclaimant Elizabeth Joan Hughes' motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 40). Counterdefendant Gabriel Bristol has not filed a response, and the deadline for doing so has since passed.

By way of procedural history, Bristol filed the civil complaint that initiated this case. (ECF No. 1). Defendant filed a motion to dismiss, which this court denied. (ECF No. 17). Thereafter, Hughes filed an answer and counterclaims. (ECF No. 18). After lengthy discovery disputes, the court ordered dismissal of plaintiff's complaint with prejudice for failure to abide by numerous court orders. (ECF Nos. 34, 39). The complaint was stricken from the record. Therefore, the only operative allegations in this action come from Hughes' counterclaims.

A federal court must possess jurisdiction over an action to hear the dispute. Weeping Hollow Avenue Trust v. Spencer, 831 F.3d 1110, 1112. If a court determines at any time that it lacks subject matter over an action, it must dismiss or remand the case as appropriate. See id. at 1114 (reversing and remanding with instructions to remand the case to state court, as the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the claims); Tosco Corp. v. Communities for a Better Env't, 236 F.3d 495, 499 (9th Cir. 2001) ("A plaintiff suing in federal court must show in his pleading, affirmatively and distinctly, the existence of whatever is essential to federal jurisdiction, and, if he does not do so, the court, on having the defect called to its attention or on discovering the same, must dismiss the case.").

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) permits a party to assert the defense of lack of subject matter jurisdiction by motion. Id. Further, a court may raise the question of subject matter jurisdiction sua sponte at any time during an action. United States v. Moreno-Morillo, 334 F.3d 819, 830 (9th Cir. 2003). Regardless of who raises the issue, "when a federal court concludes that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the complaint in its entirety." Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 514, 126 S.Ct. 1235, 163 L. Ed. 2d 1097 (2006).

A court sitting in diversity may exercise "jurisdiction in cases between `citizens of different States.'" 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1). Diversity, in this context, requires "complete diversity." Strawbridge v. Curtiss, 7 U.S. 267 (1806). Essentially, each plaintiff must be a citizen of a different state than each defendant. Weeping Hollow, 831 F.3d at 1112.

Here, all of Hughes' claims arise under state law. See (ECF No. 18). Therefore, the only statute that would afford jurisdiction over this action is 28 U.S.C. § 1332, which details the requirements for diversity jurisdiction. Hughes alleges that both she and Bristol are residents of the state of Nevada.1 See (ECF No. 18). Therefore, the court does not have subject matter jurisdiction over this action. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332. The court will dismiss this case for want of jurisdiction. See Arbaugh, 546 U.S. at 514.

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that counterclaimant's motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 40) be, and the same hereby is, DENIED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this case be, and the same hereby is, DISMISSED for want of jurisdiction.

The clerk shall enter judgment accordingly and close the case.