Travelers Indemnity Company of Connecticut v. Centex Homes, a Nevada General Partnership et al

Filing 9

Order to Show Cause re: Subject Matter Jurisdiction by Judge Jesus G. Bernal. The Court ORDERS Plaintiff to show cause in writing no later than May 27, 2014 why this action should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Plaintiff shall demonstrate that none of Centex Homes' members are citizens of Connecticut. Failure to comply with this order may lead to dismissal of the action. (adu)

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

EDCV 14-0906 JGB (SPx)

Date

May 15, 2014

Title Travelers Indemnity Company of Connecticut v. Centex Homes, et al.

Present: The Honorable

JESUS G. BERNAL, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

MAYNOR GALVEZ

Not Reported

Deputy Clerk

Court Reporter

Attorney(s) Present for Plaintiff(s):

Attorney(s) Present for Defendant(s):

None Present
None Present
Proceedings:   Order to Show Cause re: Subject Matter Jurisdiction
On May 6, 2014, Plaintiff Travelers Indemnity Company of Connecticut filed a
Complaint against Defendants Centex Homes, a general partnership, and Centex Real Estate
Corporation. (Compl., Doc. No. 1.) Plaintiff alleges this Court has diversity jurisdiction under
28 U.S.C. § 1332. (Compl. ¶ 5.)
Federal courts have a duty to examine their jurisdiction sua sponte before proceeding to
the merits of a case. See S. Pac. Transp. Co. v. City of Los Angeles, 922 F.2d 498, 502 (9th Cir.
1990). Under Section 1332, district courts have diversity jurisdiction over all civil actions
“where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and
costs, and is between . . . citizens of different States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a).
The Complaint states that Plaintiff is a corporation existing under the laws of Connecticut
with its principal place of business in the same state. (Compl. ¶ 1.) Plaintiff also alleges that
Defendant Centex Homes, a general partnership, exists under the laws of Nevada and has its
principal place of business in Texas. (Compl. ¶ 2.) However, the citizenship of an
unincorporated association such as a partnership is determined by the citizenships of all of its
members. See Carden v. Arkoma Assocs., 494 U.S. 185, 195–96 (1990); Johnson v. Columbia
Props. Anchorage, LP, 437 F.3d 894, 899 (9th Cir. 2006). Accordingly, if any member of
Centex Homes is a Connecticut resident, complete diversity does not exist. The Complaint does
not disclose the citizenship of Centex Homes’ members, and the Court therefore has insufficient
information to determine whether it has subject matter jurisdiction over the action.

Page 1 of 2

CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL

Initials of Deputy Clerk MG

The Court ORDERS Plaintiff to show cause in writing no later than May 27, 2014 why
this action should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Plaintiff shall
demonstrate that none of Centex Homes’ members are citizens of Connecticut. Failure to
comply with this order may lead to dismissal of the action.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Page 2 of 2

CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL

Initials of Deputy Clerk MG