Tiffany Burton et al v. Nutribullet, L.L.C., et al

Filing 32

MINUTE (IN CHAMBERS)- ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THIS ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION by Judge Dolly M. Gee. On May 3 2017, Plaintiffs Tiffany Burton and Charles Burton filed a Complaint in this Court against Def endant Nutribullet, L.L.C. Plaintiffs assert subject matter jurisdiction based on diversity of citizenship, 28 U.S.C. Accordingly, the Complaint fails to establish that complete diversity of citizenship exists. In light of the foregoing, Plaintiffs are ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE in writing by October 12, 2017 why this action should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. (iv)

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

Date

CV 17-3358 DMG (AFMx)

Title Tiffany Burton, et al. v. Nutribullet, L.L.C. et al.
Present: The Honorable

October 5, 2017
Page

1 of 1

DOLLY M. GEE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

KANE TIEN
Deputy Clerk

NOT REPORTED
Court Reporter

Attorneys Present for Plaintiff(s)
None Present

Attorneys Present for Defendant(s)
None Present

Proceedings: IN CHAMBERS - ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THIS ACTION
SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER
JURISDICTION
On May 3 2017, Plaintiffs Tiffany Burton and Charles Burton filed a Complaint in this
Court against Defendant Nutribullet, L.L.C. (“Compl.”). [Doc. # 1.] The Complaint alleges the
following causes of action: (1) negligence; (2) strict liability—failure to warn; (3) strict
liability—manufacturing defect; (4) strict liability—design defect; (5) breach of implied
warranty of merchantability; (6) unfair competition in violation of California Business and
Professions Code § 17200, et seq.; (7) negligent infliction of emotional distress; and (8) loss of
consortium. See Compl. at 6–16.
Plaintiffs assert subject matter jurisdiction based on diversity of citizenship, 28 U.S.C.
§ 1332(a). Compl. at ¶ 5. To establish diversity jurisdiction, there must be “complete diversity
between the parties—each defendant must be a citizen of a different state from each plaintiff.”
Diaz v. Davis (In re Digimarc Corp. Derivative Litig.), 549 F.3d 1223, 1234 (9th Cir. 2008)
(citing Strawbridge v. Curtiss, 7 U.S. (3 Cranch) 267, 267, 2 L. Ed. 435 (1806)). Plaintiffs allege
that they are citizens of Texas. See Compl. at ¶ 1. Nonetheless, they do not adequately allege
Defendant Nutribullet, L.L.C.’s citizenship. Because Defendant is a limited liability corporation,
it is a citizen of every state of which its owners or members are citizens. Johnson v. Columbia
Props. Advantage, LP, 437 F.3d 894, 899 (9th Cir. 2006). Although the Complaint alleges that
Defendant Nutribullet, L.L.C. is a California Limited Liability Corporation with its principal
office in Los Angeles, California, see Compl. at ¶ 2, it does not allege the citizenship of all
Defendant’s owners and/or members. Accordingly, the Complaint fails to establish that
complete diversity of citizenship exists.
In light of the foregoing, Plaintiffs are ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE in writing by
October 12, 2017 why this action should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
CV-90

CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL

Initials of Deputy Clerk KT