Mike Spanos v. US Bancorp et al

Filing 7

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION by Judge Beverly Reid O'Connell. Plaintiff is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE why this case should not be remanded for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. An appropriate response to this Order will (1 ) demonstrate that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, and (2) identify the members or owners of the LLC Defendants, as well as every state in which every member or owner is a citizen. Plaintiff's response to this Order shall be filed no later than Friday, February 6, 2015, by 4:00 p.m. IT IS SO ORDERED. (jloz)

LINK:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
Case No.

CV 15–00162 BRO (DTBx)

Title

MIKE SPANOS V. U.S. BANCORP ET AL.

Date

January 29, 2015

Present: The
Honorable

BEVERLY REID O’CONNELL, United States District
Judge

Renee A. Fisher

Not Present

N/A

Deputy Clerk

Court Reporter

Tape No.

Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs:

Attorneys Present for Defendants:

Not Present

Not Present

Proceedings:

(IN CHAMBERS)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION
Plaintiff Mike Spanos (“Plaintiff”) initiated this action on January 26, 2015. (Dkt.
No. 1.) Plaintiff filed the Complaint following a foreclosure on his home, located at
13354 Viejo Circle, Victorville, California. (Compl. ¶¶ 1, 7.) Plaintiff currently faces
eviction under a state unlawful detainer action . (Id. ¶ 7.) The Complaint names four
defendants: (1) U.S. Bancorp; (2) Servis One, Inc.; (3) Cal-Western Reconveyance, LLC;
and (4) Eagle Vista Equities, LLC (collectively, “Defendants”).
Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. They possess original jurisdiction
only as authorized by the Constitution and federal statute. See, e.g., Kokkonen v.
Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). Original jurisdiction may be
established pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Under § 1332, a federal district court has
“original jurisdiction of all civil actions where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum
or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs,” and the dispute is between “citizens
of different states.” Id. § 1332(a)(1). The United States Supreme Court has interpreted
the diversity statute to require “complete diversity of citizenship,” meaning each plaintiff
must be diverse from each defendant. Caterpillar Inc. v. Lewis, 519 U.S. 61, 67–68
(1996). For purposes of diversity jurisdiction, a limited liability corporation is considered
a citizen of every state in which its owners or members are citizens. Johnson v.
Columbia Props. Anchorage, LP, 437 F.3d 894, 899 (9th Cir. 2006).
The Complaint fails to invoke this Court’s federal subject matter jurisdiction under
28 U.S.C. §1332. As an initial matter, the Complaint does not allege an amount in
CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

Page 1 of 2

LINK:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
Case No.

CV 15–00162 BRO (DTBx)

Title

MIKE SPANOS V. U.S. BANCORP ET AL.

Date

January 29, 2015

controversy. (See generally Compl.) Plaintiff does seek general, exemplary, and special
damages, as well as punitive damages and attorneys’ fees. (See id. Prayer for Relief.)
But Plaintiff does not demand any specific amount of damages. Without any allegations
regarding the amount in controversy, the Court will not infer that it exceeds $75,000.
Moreover, the allegations related to the parties’ citizenship are insufficient to
establish complete diversity. Plaintiff is a resident of California. (Id. ¶ 1.) Plaintiff
alleges that Defendants U.S. Bancorp and Servis One, Inc. are Delaware corporations
with a principal place of business in Minnesota and Texas, respectively. (Id. ¶¶ 3, 4.)
Plaintiff also alleges that Defendants Cal-Western Reconveyance, LLC and Eagle Vista
Equities, LLC (the “LLC Defendants”) are California limited liability companies. (Id. ¶¶
5, 6.) But Plaintiff only alleges the LLC Defendants’ principal places of business.
(Compl. ¶¶ 5, 6.) To properly demonstrate complete diversity, Plaintiff must allege the
citizenship of each member or owner of the LLC Defendants.
Accordingly, Plaintiff is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE why this case should
not be remanded for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. An appropriate response to this
Order will (1) demonstrate that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, and (2)
identify the members or owners of the LLC Defendants, as well as every state in which
every member or owner is a citizen. Plaintiff’s response to this Order shall be filed no
later than Friday, February 6, 2015, by 4:00 p.m.
:

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Initials of
Preparer

rf

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

Page 2 of 2