Sourced Foods, Inc. v. Adesa International, LLC

Filing 11

MINUTES (In Chambers) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE Regarding Subject Matter Jurisdiction by Judge Kenly Kiya Kato. Accordingly, Plaintiff is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE in writing why this action should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Plaintiff shall file a response to this Order no later than seven days from the date of this Order. (SEE DOCUMENT FOR FURTHER DETAILS.) (rolm)

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

EDCV 24-1795-KK-SHKx

Date: August 29, 2024

Title: Sourced Foods, Inc. v. Adesa International, LLC

Present: The Honorable KENLY KIYA KATO, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Noe Ponce

Not Reported

Deputy Clerk

Court Reporter

Attorney(s) Present for Plaintiff(s):

Attorney(s) Present for Defendant(s):

None Present

None Present

Proceedings:

(In Chambers) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE Regarding Subject Matter
Jurisdiction

On August 22, 2024, plaintiff Sourced Foods, Inc. (“Plaintiff”) filed a Complaint against
defendant Adesa International, LLC (“Defendant”), asserting diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1332. ECF Docket No. (“Dkt.”) 3, Compl.
Federal courts are courts of “limited jurisdiction” which “possess only that power authorized
by Constitution and statute[.]” Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377
(1994). Thus, a federal court has “an independent obligation to determine whether subject-matter
jurisdiction exists,” and may raise the issue “on its own initiative, at any stage in the litigation[.]”
Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 506, 514 (2006). The party asserting federal jurisdiction bears
the burden of proving jurisdiction exists. Me. Cmty. Health Options v. Albertsons Cos., 993 F.3d
720, 723 (9th Cir. 2021).
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a), a federal district court has original jurisdiction over a civil action
where the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 and there is complete diversity of citizenship
between the parties. Complete diversity requires each plaintiff to be of a different citizenship than
each defendant. Grancare, LLC v. Thrower, 889 F.3d 543, 548 (9th Cir. 2018) (citing Caterpillar Inc.
v. Lewis, 519 U.S. 61, 68 (1996)). A corporation is a citizen of the state where it is incorporated and
of the state where it has its principal place of business. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1).
Here, Plaintiff has not established complete diversity of citizenship. Plaintiff alleges it is a
California corporation with its principal place of business in California. Compl. ¶ 2. Thus, for
jurisdictional purposes, Plaintiff is a citizen of California. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1). Plaintiff
Page 1 of 2

CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL

Initials of Deputy Clerk NP

further alleges Defendant is a Delaware limited liability company with its principal place of business
in California. Compl. ¶ 3. Thus, for jurisdictional purposes, Defendant is a citizen of both
Delaware and California. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1). Hence, because both Plaintiff and Defendant
are citizens of California, the Court lacks diversity jurisdiction over this matter.
Accordingly, Plaintiff is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE in writing why this action
should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Plaintiff shall file a response to this
Order no later than seven days from the date of this Order.
Plaintiff is expressly warned that failure to timely file a response to this Order will
result in this action being dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction
and/or failure to prosecute and comply with court orders. See Arbaugh, 546 U.S. at 514; FED.
R. CIV. P. 41(b).
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Page 2 of 2

CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL

Initials of Deputy Clerk NP