Camelot Entertainment Inc et al v. Incentive Capital LLC et al

Filing 8

IN CHAMBERS - ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION: Defendant is therefore ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE why this case should not be remanded for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. A supplemental declaration adequately alleging the citizensh ip of the parties will be deemed an adequate response to this Order. Defendant shall file its response by no later than April 28, 2011.Failure to file a timely response will be deemed consent to remand of the action. The hearing on the pending motion to remand currently scheduled for May 2, 2011 is hereby CONTINUED to May 9, 2011. (rrey)

LINK: 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Case No.

No. CV-11-2323 GAF (JEMx)

Title

Camelot Entertainment Inc et al v. Incentive Capital LLC et al

Present: The Honorable

Date

April 14, 2011

GARY ALLEN FEESS

Renee Fisher
Deputy Clerk

None
Court Reporter / Recorder

N/A
Tape No.

Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs:

Attorneys Present for Defendants:

None

None

Proceedings:

(In Chambers)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION
On February 15, 2011, Plaintiffs Camelot Entertainment, Inc. (“Camelot Entertainment”),
Camelot Film Group, Inc. (“Camelot Film”), Camelot Distribution Group, Inc. (“Camelot
Distribution”), and Robert P. Atwell (“Atwell”) (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed suit against
Defendant Incentive Capital, LLC (“Defendant”) in the Los Angeles County Superior Court.
(Docket No. 1, Not. of Removal, Ex. A [Compl.].) In their complaint, Plaintiffs allege various
state-law causes of action. (Id.) On March 18, 2011, Defendant timely removed the action to
this Court, invoking diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. (Not. ¶ 3.) However, as
explained in greater detail below, Defendant failed to properly allege the citizenship of several
parties to the suit as necessary to show the existence of diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1332. Defendant is therefore hereby ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE why this case should
not be remanded for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of
Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). The burden of establishing jurisdiction rests upon the party
asserting jurisdiction. Id. Federal courts have jurisdiction on the basis of diversity of citizenship
where the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 and where the matter is between citizens of
different states. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). A person’s state of citizenship is “determined by her state
of domicile, not her state of residence.” Kanter v. Warner-Lambert Co., 265 F.3d 853, 857 (9th
Cir. 2001). A corporation is a “citizen of any State by which it has been incorporated and of the
State where it has its principal place of business.” 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1). “[A]n LLC is a
citizen of every state of which its owners/members are citizens.” Johnson v. Columbia Props.
Anchorage, LP, 437 F.3d 894, 899 (9th Cir. 2006).
CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 1 of 2

LINK: 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Case No.

No. CV-11-2323 GAF (JEMx)

Date

April 14, 2011

Title

Camelot Entertainment Inc et al v. Incentive Capital LLC et al

Here, Defendant alleges in its notice of removal that Plaintiff Atwell, an individual, is
“domiciled in California.” (Not. ¶ 4.) This properly alleges citizenship of this Plaintiff. See
Kanter, 265 F.3d at 857.
Defendant, however, has not properly alleged the citizenship of the remaining parties to
this case. Defendant alleges that the other three Plaintiffs, corporations, are “a Delaware
corporation,” “a Nevada corporation,” and “a Nevada corporation.” (Not. ¶ 4.) This amounts to
an allegation that these entities are incorporated in those states. Defendant, however, has not
alleged where those entities have their principal places of business. Defendant does alleges that
those Plaintiffs are “domiciled” in those states. (Id.) Defendant may intend to indicate that
those entities have their principal places of business in those states, but the allegations are
unclear and thus are insufficient to satisfy the Court that it has subject matter jurisdiction on the
basis of diversity of citizenship. Defendant must allege these entities’ principal places of
business to establish diversity jurisdiction. See Patton v. Schneider Nat. Carriers, Inc., No. 0901010, 2009 WL 545779, *2 (C.D. Cal.) (ordering the plaintiff to show cause why the case
should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction where the complaint alleged the
corporate defendant’s domicile but failed to state its principal place of business).
Lastly, Defendant has also failed to properly plead its own citizenship. Defendant alleges
that it is an LLC “domiciled in Utah” (Not. ¶ 5), but fails to plead the citizenship of its
owners/members as required under Circuit law. See Johnson, 437 F.3d at 899.
Given the defects outlined above, the Court cannot determine whether it has subject
matter jurisdiction over this case. Defendant is therefore ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE why
this case should not be remanded for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. A supplemental
declaration adequately alleging the citizenship of the parties will be deemed an adequate
response to this Order. Defendant shall file its response by no later than April 28, 2011.
Failure to file a timely response will be deemed consent to remand of the action.
The hearing on the pending motion to remand currently scheduled for May 2, 2011 is
hereby CONTINUED to May 9, 2011.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 2 of 2