General Star Indemnity Company et al v. JRK Property Holdings, Inc.

Filing 46

MINUTES OF IN CHAMBERS - ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THIS ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION by Judge Dolly M. Gee: Plaintiffs assert subject matter jurisdiction based on the existence of complete diversity, but the Co mplaint fails to adequately plead complete diversity between the parties, namely, that Plaintiffs are citizens of a different state than Defendant. Without more detailed allegations regarding the citizenship of each Syndicate's Names, the Court cannot determine whether complete diversity exists. Plaintiffs are ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE in writing by no later than 7/27/2021 why this action should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Court Reporter: Not Reported. (gk)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL Case No. CV 21-5287-DMG (SKx) Date July 13, 2021 Title General Star Indemnity Company et al v. JRK Property Holdings, Inc. Page Present: The Honorable 1 of 2 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 Plaintiffs in this declaratory judgment action relating to an insurance coverage dispute consist of, inter alia, several Lloyd’s Underwriter Syndicates—namely, Syndicate Nos. 1967 WRB, 1861 ATL, AFB 2623, 1225 AES, 1886, 0382 HDU, and 1945 SII. For each Syndicate, Plaintiffs allege that they are organized and registered under the laws of the United Kingdom and have their principal place of business in the United Kingdom. Compl. ¶¶ 5, 6, 8, 10. Defendant JRK Property Holdings, Inc. is a California corporation with its principal place of business in California. Id. at ¶ 22. Plaintiffs assert subject matter jurisdiction based on the existence of complete diversity, 28 U.S.C. § 1332, but the Complaint fails to adequately plead complete diversity between the parties, namely, that Plaintiffs are citizens of a different state than Defendant. Diaz v. Davis, 549 F.3d 1223, 1234 (9th Cir. 2008) (citing Strawbridge v. Curtiss, 7 U.S. (3 Cranch) 267, 267, 2 L. Ed. 435 (1806)). Other courts examining Lloyd’s unique structure have concluded that each member, or “Name,” of a larger group known as a “Syndicate”—such as Plaintiffs Syndicate No. 1967 WRB and Syndicate No. 1861 ATL —must be diverse from Defendant to satisfy diversity jurisdiction. See Majestic Ins. Co. v. Allianz Int'l Ins. Co., 133 F. Supp. 2d 1218, 1223 (N.D. Cal. 2001); see also PHL Variable Ins. Co. v. Cont'l Cas. Co., No. CV 19-06799-CRB, 2020 WL 1288454, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 18, 2020) (collecting cases). Plaintiffs plead the place the registration and principal place of business of each Syndicate, but not of each Syndicate’s members/Names.1 Without more detailed allegations regarding the citizenship of each Syndicate’s Names, the Court cannot determine whether complete diversity exists. 1 One Plaintiff is “Lloyd’s Underwriter Syndicate member ARGO (No. 604) Limited”—registered and headquartered in the United Kingdom—but the Complaint does not specify which other Plaintiff Syndicate this entity is a member of, if any. CV-90 CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL Initials of Deputy Clerk kt UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL Case No. CV 21-5287-DMG (SKx) Date July 13, 2021 Title General Star Indemnity Company et al v. JRK Property Holdings, Inc. Page 2 of 2 In light of the foregoing, Plaintiffs are ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE in writing by no later than July 27, 2021 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

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?