John G. Fintland et al v. Luxury Marine Group, LLC et al

Filing 6

MINUTES OF IN CHAMBERS ORDER held before Judge A. Howard Matz: Court ORDERS Plaintiff TO SHOW CAUSE on or before July 13, 2009, why this action should not be dismissed for lack of diversity jurisdiction. Failure to respond on or before that date will be construed as consent to dismissal. (se)

O UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Case No. Title CV 09-4267 AHM (AGRx) Date July 1, 2009 JOHN G. FINTLAND, et al. v. LUXURY MARINE GROUP, LLC, et al.

Present: The Honorable S. Eagle Deputy Clerk

A. HOWARD MATZ, U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE Not Reported Court Reporter / Recorder Tape No. Attorneys NOT Present for Defendants:

Attorneys NOT Present for Plaintiffs:

Proceedings:

IN CHAMBERS (No Proceedings Held)

On June 15, 2009, Plaintiffs filed this action based on diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Complaint ¶ 4. However, diversity jurisdiction is not evident from the face of the Complaint. A federal court must determine its own jurisdiction even if there is no objection to it. Rains v. Criterion Sys., Inc., 80 F.3d 339 (9th Cir. 1996). Jurisdiction must be determined from the face of the complaint. Caterpillar, Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987). A federal court has original jurisdiction over a civil matter "where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, . . . and is between . . . citizens of different State." 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). A "corporation [is] deemed to be a citizen of any State by which it has been incorporated and of the State where it has its principal place of business . . . ." Id. at 1332(c)(1). However, to determine the citizenship of a noncorporate entity, the citizenship of all of the members or partners is relevant. Carden v. Arkoma Assoc., 494 U.S. 185, 195-196 (1990) (holding that, for the purpose of diversity jurisdiction, the citizenship of a limited partnership is determined by the citizenship of each of the partners). This is true for all non-corporate entities, whether they be unincorporated associations, limited liability companies, or limited liability partnerships. See United Steelworkers of Am. v. R.H. Bouligny, Inc., 382 U.S. 145, 153 (1965); Kuntz v. Lamar Corp., 385 F.3d 1177, 1182-83 (9th Cir. 2004). Therefore, if one member of the limited liability corporation is a citizen of the same state as one of the plaintiffs, complete diversity does not exist. See Carden, 494 U.S. at 192. To establish citizenship for diversity purposes, a person must be both (1) a citizen of the United States, and (2) be domiciled in the state. Kantor v. Wellesley Galleries, Ltd., 704 F.2d 1088, 1090 (9th Cir. 1983). A person's domicile is his permanent home,
CV-90 (06/04) CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Page 1 of 2

O UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Case No. Title CV 09-4267 AHM (AGRx) Date July 1, 2009 JOHN G. FINTLAND, et al. v. LUXURY MARINE GROUP, LLC, et al.

where he resides with the intention to remain or to which he intends to return. Kanter v. Warner-Lambert Co., 265 F.3d 853, 857 (9th Cir. 2001). A person residing in a given state is not necessarily domiciled there and thus is not necessarily a citizen of that state. Id.. In this case, Plaintiffs' complaint fails to allege the citizenship of any plaintiff; instead, the complaint only alleges that the individual plaintiffs and the members of Plaintiff JG Asset Company, a limited liability company, are "resident[s]" of California. Complaint ¶ 2. Plaintiffs also fail to properly plead the citizenship of at least four Defendants because the Complaint alleges that these Defendants are "limited liability compan[ies]," but does not allege the citizenship of these companies' members. Id. ¶ 2-3. Thus, Plaintiff's allegations do not conclusively establish diversity jurisdiction. Accordingly, and good cause appearing therefor, the Court hereby ORDERS Plaintiff TO SHOW CAUSE on or before July 13, 2009, why this action should not be dismissed for lack of diversity jurisdiction. Failure to respond on or before that date will be construed as consent to dismissal.

: Initials of Preparer se

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 2 of 2