State Farm General Insurance Company v. Best Buy Stores, L.P.

Filing 22

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION by Judge George H. Wu: The Court orders Defendant Best Buy to show cause in writing no later than October 20, 2016 why this action should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Defendant is reminded that courtesy copies are to be delivered to Chambers. The Court will also entertain any argument the parties wish to present on the issue at the Scheduled Conference. (cr)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.

CV 16-6682-GW (MRW)

Title

State Farm General Insurance Company v. Best Buy Stores, L.P. et al.

Present: The Honorable

Date

October 12, 2016

GEORGE H. WU, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Javier Gonzalez

None Present

Deputy Clerk

Court Reporter / Recorder

Tape No.

Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs:

Attorneys Present for Defendants:

None Present

None Present

PROCEEDINGS (IN CHAMBERS):

I.

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE SUBJECT MATTER
JURISDICTION

Background

On August 3, 2016, Plaintiff State Farm General Insurance Company (“State Farm”) filed a
complaint for subrogation against Defendants Best Buy Stores, L.P. (“Best Buy”) and Does 1-40. See
generally Notice of Removal, Ex. A (“Complaint”); Docket No. 1. On September 6, 2016, Best Buy
removed this action to this Court on the basis of diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. See id.
II.

Diversity Jurisdiction

In order for a court to have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, the parties must be completely
diverse. See Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Servs., Inc., 545 U.S. 546, 553 (2005) (“[T]he presence . . .
of a single plaintiff from the same [s]tate as a single defendant deprives the district court of original diversity
jurisdiction.”). For the purposes of determining diversity, a partnership is a citizen of every state of which
its members are citizens. Carden v. Arkoma Assocs., 494 U.S. 185, 195-96 (1990); see also Schwarzer,
Tashima & Wagstaffe, Cal. Prac. Guide: Fed. Civ. Proc. Before Trial (The Rutter Group 2016)
(“Schwarzer”) §§ 2:1353 (“[U]nincorporated associations and partnerships are treated as a citizen of each
state of which its members are citizens.”), 2:1353 (“In suits by or against a partnership, the citizenship of
all partners – general and limited – is attributed to the partnership for diversity purposes.”) (citing Carden,
494 U.S. at 195-95).
The burden of proving jurisdictional facts falls on the party invoking federal jurisdiction. See Kanter
v. Warner-Lambert Co., 265 F.3d 853, 857-58 (9th Cir. 2001). Because Defendant Best Buy invoked the
Court’s diversity jurisdiction here when it removed this action (see Notice of Removal ¶¶ 3-4), it must prove
:
Initials of Preparer
CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

JG
Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.

CV 16-6682-GW (MRW)

Date

October 12, 2016

Title

State Farm General Insurance Company v. Best Buy Stores, L.P. et al.

that jurisdiction is proper, in particular that the citizenships of the parties are completely diverse.
In support of jurisdiction, Best Buy states only that it is “a Virginia Limited Partnership with its
principal place of business and nerve center in Minnesota.” Id. ¶ 4. Because it does not plead the citizenship
of all of its members (see Carden, 494 U.S. at 195-95), it does not satisfy its burden to show that citizenships
of the parties are completely diverse (see Kanter, 265 F.3d at 857-58).
III.

Conclusion

The Court orders Defendant Best Buy to show cause in writing no later than October 20, 2016 why
this action should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Defendant is reminded that
courtesy copies are to be delivered to Chambers. The Court will also entertain any argument the parties wish
to present on the issue at the Scheduled Conference.

:
Initials of Preparer
CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

JG
Page 2 of 2