Qinrong Qiu v. Hongying Zhang et al

Filing 56

MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION by Judge John F. Walter. Plaintiff is hereby ordered to show cause, in writing, no later than April 17, 2018 why this action should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. If Plaintiff files an amended complaint which corrects the jurisdictional defects noted above on or before April 17, 2018, the Court will consider that a satisfactory response to the Order to Show Cause. Failure to respond to the Order to Show Cause will result in the dismissal of this action. (iv)

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

CV 17-05446-JFW (JEM)

Title:

Qinrong Qiu -v- Hongying Zhang et al.

Date: April 13, 2018

PRESENT:
HONORABLE JOHN F. WALTER, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Shannon Reilly
Courtroom Deputy

None Present
Court Reporter

ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR PLAINTIFFS:
None
PROCEEDINGS (IN CHAMBERS):

ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR DEFENDANTS:
None
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: SUBJECT
MATTER JURISDICTION

On July 24, 2017, Plaintiff Qinrong Qiu (“Plaintiff”) filed a Complaint against Defendants
Hongying Zhang, Xinghua Yu, Jie Yu, and Boxwood International LLC (collectively, “Defendants”)
alleging that this Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332.
Diversity jurisdiction founded under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) requires that (1) all plaintiffs be of
different citizenship than all defendants, and (2) the amount in controversy exceed $75,000. See
28 U.S.C. § 1332. In his Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants Zhang, X. Yu, and J. Yu are
residents of California. However, “the diversity jurisdiction statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1332, speaks of
citizenship, not of residency.” Kanter v. Warner-Lambert Co., 265 F.3d 853, 857 (9th Cir. 2001).
To be a citizen of a state, a natural person must be a citizen of the United States and be domiciled
in a particular state. Id. Persons are domiciled in the places they reside with the intent to remain
or to which they intend to return. Id. “A person residing in a given state is not necessarily
domiciled there, and thus is not necessarily a citizen of that state.” Id. Therefore, Plaintiff’s
allegations are insufficient to establish Zhang’s, X. Yu’s, and J. Yu’s citizenship.
In addition, a limited liability company is a citizen of every state of which its members are
citizens. See, e.g., Johnson v. Columbia Properties Anchorage, LP, 437 F.3d 894, 899 (9th Cir.
2006) (“[L]ike a partnership, an LLC is a citizen of every state of which its owners/members are
citizens.”). Although Plaintiff alleges that Boxwood International, LLC is a California company, he
fails to allege the citizenship of any of its members.

Accordingly, Plaintiff is hereby ordered to show cause, in writing, no later than April 17,
2018 why this action should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. No oral
argument on this matter will be heard unless otherwise ordered by the Court. See Fed. R. Civ. P.
78; Local Rule 7-15. The Order will stand submitted upon the filing of the response to the Order to
Page 1 of 2

Initials of Deputy Clerk sr

Show Cause. If Plaintiff files an amended complaint which corrects the jurisdictional defects noted
above on or before April 17, 2018, the Court will consider that a satisfactory response to the Order
to Show Cause. Failure to respond to the Order to Show Cause will result in the dismissal of this
action.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Page 2 of 2

Initials of Deputy Clerk sr