Transplace International, Inc. et al vs Motor Parts of America, et al

Filing 10

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION by Judge Beverly Reid O'Connell. Plaintiffs must respond no later than 9:00 a.m. on Friday, November 7, 2014. (SEE ORDER FOR DETAILS) (kss)

LINK:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
Case No.

CV 14-07928 BRO (PJWx)

Title

TRANSPLACE INTERNATIONAL, INC. ET AL. V. MOTORCAR PARTS OF
AMERICA ET AL.

Date

October 31, 2014

Present: The Honorable

BEVERLY REID O’CONNELL, United States District Judge

Renee A. Fisher

Not Present

N/A

Deputy Clerk

Court Reporter

Tape No.

Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs:

Attorneys Present for Defendants:

Not Present

Not Present

Proceedings:

(IN CHAMBERS)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION
A federal court must determine its own jurisdiction even if there is no objection.
Rains v. Criterion Sys., Inc., 80 F.3d 339, 342 (9th Cir. 1996). Because federal courts are
of limited jurisdiction, they possess original jurisdiction only as authorized by the
Constitution and federal statute. See Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511
U.S. 375, 377 (1994). Original jurisdiction may be established pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1332. Under § 1332, a federal district court has jurisdiction over a civil action between
citizens of different states where the matter in controversy exceeds $75,000.
In their Complaint, Plaintiffs assert that there is complete diversity of citizenship
between the parties. (Compl. ¶¶ 1–8.) According to the Complaint, Defendants are
citizens of both New York and California because they are New York corporations that
have their principal places of business in California. (Compl. ¶¶ 5–6.) Thus, if any of the
Plaintiffs is a citizen of either New York or California, complete diversity would be
destroyed. Plaintiffs maintain that there is complete diversity in this action based on the
Plaintiffs’ citizenship. Yet they provide inadequate information from which to draw this
conclusion. For example, Plaintiff Transplace Texas LP is a limited partnership. For
purposes of diversity jurisdiction, a limited partnership shares the citizenship of all of its
limited partners. See Nugget Hydroelectric, L.P. v. Pac. Gas & Elec. Co., 981 F.2d 429,
438 (9th Cir. 1992) (“Nugget asserted diversity jurisdiction. It was required to specify
affirmatively the citizenship of all relevant parties, which in the case of a limited
partnership such as Nugget, are the partners.” (citation omitted)). Similarly, Plaintiff
Transplace Mexico, LLC is a limited liability company. And the Ninth Circuit has long
held that, “like a partnership, [a limited liability company] is a citizen of every state of
CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

Page 1 of 2

LINK:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
Case No.

CV 14-07928 BRO (PJWx)

Title

TRANSPLACE INTERNATIONAL, INC. ET AL. V. MOTORCAR PARTS OF
AMERICA ET AL.

Date

October 31, 2014

which its owners/members are citizens.” Johnson v. Columbia Props. Anchorage, LP,
437 F.3d 894, 899 (9th Cir. 2006).
By failing to detail the citizenship of each limited partner of Transplace Texas LP
and each member of Transplace Mexico, LLC, the Complaint fails to provide sufficient
information regarding the citizenship of the Plaintiffs. Without such information, the
Court cannot determine whether complete diversity exists in this matter. As a result, it
remains unclear whether the Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332.
Accordingly, the Court ORDERS Plaintiffs to show cause as to why this case
should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Plaintiffs must respond no
later than 9:00 a.m. on Friday, November 7, 2014.
:

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Initials of Preparer

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

rf

Page 2 of 2