LegalZoom.com Inc v. Macey Bankruptcy Law PC et al
Filing
15
ORDER DISMISSING FOR LACK OF SUBJECT-MATTER JURISDICTION by Judge Otis D. Wright, II. (Made JS-6. Case Terminated.) .(lc). Modified on 11/18/2013 (lc).
O
JS-6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
LEGALZOOM.COM, INC.,
12
13
14
15
16
17
v.
Plaintiff,
MACEY BANKRUPTCY LAW, P.C.,
MACEY BANKRUPTCY LAW
HOLDING, P.C., LEAL HELPERS DEBT
RESOLUTION, LLC, JACOBY &
MEYERS–BANKRUPTCY, LLC, and
DOES 1–10, inclusive,
Case No. 2:13-cv-7894-ODW(MRWx)
ORDER DISMISSING FOR LACK
OF SUBJECT-MATTER
JURISDICTION
Defendants.
18
On October 25, 2013, LegalZoom.com filed a Complaint in this Court.
19
LegalZoom contends that this Court has federal-subject-matter jurisdiction over this
20
action on the basis of diversity of citizenship under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. (ECF No. 1.)
21
The Court issued an Order to Show Cause Re Subject Matter Jurisdiction on
22
November 18, 2013. (ECF No. 7.) The Court could not determine whether diversity
23
of citizenship exists in this action, because LegalZoom failed to state the citizenship of
24
the partners and members of Defendants Legal Helpers Debt Resolution, LLC and
25
Jacoby & Meyers–Bankruptcy, LLP. In the Order to Show Cause, the Court noted
26
that, unlike the citizenship of a natural person, the citizenship of a partnership or other
27
unincorporated entity is the citizenship of its members. Carden v. Arkoma Assocs.,
28
494 U.S. 185, 195–96 (1990). The Court therefore held that it could not determine
1
whether diversity of citizenship existed, because LegalZoom did not allege the
2
citizenships of the partners and members of the respective entities.
3
On November 5, 2013, LegalZoom filed the Declaration of Andrew V. Jablon
4
in response to the Order to Show Cause. (ECF No. 8.) But again, LegalZoom fails to
5
sufficiently allege the citizenship of the partners and members of Jacoby & Meyers–
6
Bankruptcy, LLP.1
7
partnership between Macey Bankruptcy and Jacoby & Meyers.
8
LegalZoom must sufficiently allege the citizenship of both Macey Bankruptcy’s and
9
Jacoby & Meyer’s members.
Jablon asserts that Jacoby & Meyers–Bankruptcy, LLP is a
Accordingly,
10
Jablon avers that, “Jacoby & Meyers, LLC is an Alabama limited liability
11
company whose members . . . are John J. Givens and J. K. Givens, each of which
12
appear to be residents of the State of Alabama. (Jablon Decl. ¶ 4) (emphasis added).
13
This alone renders the response to the Court’s Order to Show Cause insufficient.
14
LegalZoom fails to allege the citizenships of John J. Givens and J. K. Givens. For the
15
purposes of complete diversity, citizenship is determined by the state of domicile—not
16
the state of residence.” Kantor v. Warner-Lambert Co., 265 F.3d 853, 857 (9th Cir.
17
2001); see also Jeffcott v. Donovan, 135 F.2d 213, 214 (9th Cir. 1943) (“Diversity of
18
citizenship as a basis for the jurisdiction of a cause in the District Court of the United
19
States is not dependent upon the residence of any of the parties, but upon their
20
citizenship.”).
21
Further, Jablon does not even mention Macey Bankruptcy in his declaration—
22
much less the citizenship of its members. LegalZoom has failed to properly respond
23
to the Court’s November 7, 2013 Order to Show Cause. The Court cannot determine
24
the citizenship of any of Macey Bankruptcy’s and Jacoby & Meyer’s members from
25
Jablon’s declaration.
26
jurisdiction exists in this case.
The Court therefore remains unconvinced that diversity
27
28
1
LegalZoom dismissed defendant Legal Helpers Debt Resolution, LLC from this action on
November 13, 2013. (ECF No. 14.)
2
1
For these reasons, the Court finds that it lacks jurisdiction over this case. This
2
action is therefore DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for lack of subject-matter
3
jurisdiction.
4
IT IS SO ORDERED.
5
6
November 18, 2013
7
8
9
____________________________________
OTIS D. WRIGHT, II
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?