Oto Analytics, Inc. v. North American Bancard, LLC et al

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)

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