Oto Analytics, Inc. dba Womply v. North American Bancard, LLC

Filing 11

MINUTE (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THIS ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISS FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION by Judge John F. Walter. Plaintiff is hereby ordered to show cause, in writing, no later than April 1, 2024, why this action should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. (iv)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES -- GENERAL Case No. CV 24-2113-JFW(KESx) Title: Oto Analytics, Inc. -v- North American Bancard, LLC, et al. Date: March 27, 2024 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 WHY THIS ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISS FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION On March 14, 2024, Plaintiff Oto Analytics, Inc. (“Plaintiff”) filed a Complaint in this Court against Defendant North American Bancard, LLC (“Defendant”), alleging that the Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). However, Plaintiff has not adequately alleged the facts essential for the subject matter jurisdiction of this Court. Tosco Corp. v. Communities for a Better Environment, 236 F.3d 495, 499 (9th Cir. 2001) (quoting Smith v. McCullough, 270 U.S. 456, 459 (1926)) (“‘A plaintiff suing in a federal court must show in his pleading, affirmatively and distinctly, the existence of whatever is essential to federal jurisdiction’”). 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(a). 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”); see also Grupo Dataflux v. Atlas Global Grp., L.P., 541 U.S. 567, 569 (2004) (“[A] partnership . . . is a citizen of each State or foreign country of which any of its partners is a citizen”). In this case, although Plaintiff alleges that “[o]n information and belief, [Defendant’s] members include business entities organized and existing under the laws of the State of Michigan” (Complaint, ¶ 4), Plaintiff fails to “affirmatively identify each member . . . and state the citizenship of each member”. See, e.g., PFFJ, LLC v. Cypress Benefit Admm’rs, 2010 WL 3800920 (D. Ariz. Sept. 22, 2010) (“As to each party that is a limited liability company, the amended complaint must affirmatively identify each member of that party and state the citizenship of each member”). In addition, Plaintiff’s jurisdictional allegations regarding Defendant are alleged on “information and belief.” Complaint, ¶¶ 4 and 10. Jurisdictional allegations based on information Page 1 of 2 Initials of Deputy Clerk sr and belief are insufficient to confer jurisdiction. Kanter v. Warner-Lambert Co., 265 F.3d 853, 857 (9th Cir. 2001) (“Absent unusual circumstances, a party seeking to invoke diversity jurisdiction should be able to allege affirmatively the actual citizenship of the relevant parties.”); America’s Best Inns, Inc., 980 F.2d at 1074 (holding that allegations based on “to the best of my knowledge and belief” are insufficient); see, also, Bradford v. Mitchell Bros. Truck Lines, 217 F.Supp. 525, 527 (N.D. Cal. 1963). Therefore, Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that complete diversity exists. Accordingly, Plaintiff is hereby ordered to show cause, in writing, no later than April 1, 2024, 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 Show Cause. If Plaintiff files an amended complaint which corrects the jurisdictional defects noted above on or before April 1, 2024, 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 for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. IT IS SO ORDERED. Page 2 of 2 Initials of Deputy Clerk sr

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?