Jana Smith v. Mark Simon et al

Filing 12

MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION by Judge Fernando M. Olguin. Plaintiff shall file a First Amended Complaint no later than January 31, 2022. (iv)

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

CV 21-7181 FMO (JCx)

Title

Jana Smith v. Mark Simon, et al.

Present: The Honorable

Date

January 11, 2022

Fernando M. Olguin, United States District Judge

Gabriela Garcia

None Present

Deputy Clerk

Court Reporter / Recorder

Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs:

Attorneys Present for Defendants:

None Present

None Present

Proceedings:

(In Chambers) Order to Show Cause Re: Subject Matter
Jurisdiction

On or about September 7, 2021, pro se plaintiff Jana Smith (“plaintiff”) filed a Complaint
against defendants Mark Simon (“Simon”), doing business as NORI Neutraceuticals, and
Nutritional Oncology Research Institute LLC (“NORI LLC”). (See Dkt. 1, Complaint at ¶¶ 2-3).
When federal subject matter jurisdiction is predicated on diversity of citizenship pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a), complete diversity must exist between the opposing parties. See
Caterpillar Inc. v. Lewis, 519 U.S. 61, 68, 117 S.Ct. 467, 472 (1996) (stating that the diversity
jurisdiction statute “applies only to cases in which the citizenship of each plaintiff is diverse from
the citizenship of each defendant”). “[T]he party seeking to invoke the district court’s diversity
jurisdiction always bears the burden of both pleading and proving diversity jurisdiction.” Rainero
v. Archon Corp., 844 F.3d 832, 840 (9th Cir. 2016) (quoting NewGen, LLC v. Safe Cig, LLC, 840
F.3d 606, 613-14 (9th Cir. 2016)).
To properly plead diversity jurisdiction “with respect to a limited liability company, the
citizenship of all its members must be pled.” NewGen, 840 F.3d at 611. A limited liability
company (“LLC”) “is a citizen of every state of which its owners/members are citizens.” Johnson
v. Columbia Props. Anchorage, LP, 437 F.3d 894, 899 (9th Cir. 2006); see also Carden v. Arkoma
Assocs., 494 U.S. 185, 195-96, 110 S.Ct. 1015, 1021 (1990) (“We adhere to our oft-repeated rule
that diversity jurisdiction in a suit by or against the entity depends on the citizenship of all the
members[.]”) (internal quotation marks omitted). Here, plaintiff’s Complaint alleges that NORI LLC
“is a California corporation registered to [Simon’s] home address in Ventura County.” (Dkt. 1,
Complaint at ¶ 3). Because plaintiff did not explain who the members of the LLC are and their
state of citizenship, (see, generally, id. at ¶¶ 1-4), the court cannot determine whether it has
subject matter jurisdiction.
Based on the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff shall file a First Amended Complaint no later than January 31, 2022, that sets
forth the name and citizenship of each member of defendant Nutritional Oncology Research
Institute LLC.
CV-90 (10/08)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 1 of 2

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

CV 21-7181 FMO (JCx)

Title

Date

Jana Smith v. Mark Simon, et al.

January 11, 2022

2. The First Amended Complaint must be labeled “First Amended Complaint,” filed in
compliance with Local Rule 3-2 and contain the case number assigned to the case, i.e., Case No.
CV 21-7181 FMO (JCx). In addition, plaintiff is informed that the court cannot refer to a prior
pleading in order to make his First Amended Complaint complete. Local Rule 15-2 requires that
an amended pleading be complete in and of itself without reference to any prior pleading. This
is because, as a general rule, an amended pleading supersedes the original pleading. See
Ramirez v. Cnty. of San Bernardino, 806 F.3d 1002, 1008 (9th Cir. 2015) (“It is well-established
in our circuit that an amended complaint supersedes the original, the latter being treated thereafter
as non-existent. In other words, ‘the original pleading no longer performs any function[.]’”)
(citations and internal quotation marks omitted).
3.
Plaintiff is cautioned that failure to timely file a First Amended Complaint shall result
in this action being dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute and/or failure to comply
with a court order. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 629-30, 82
S.Ct. 1386, 1388 (1962).
00
Initials of Preparer

CV-90 (10/08)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

:

00

gga

Page 2 of 2