Fast Trak Investment Company, LLC v. Stephen White et al

Filing 8

ORDER DISMISSING WITHOUT PREJUDICE FOR FAILURE TO PLEAD SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION by Judge Cormac J. Carney. Case Terminated. Made JS-6. (es)

JS-6

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7

SOUTHERN DIVISION

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

)
)
)
FAST TRAK INVESTMENT COMPANY, )
)
LLC, a limited liability company,
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
)
THERESA AND STEPHEN WHITE, a
)
married couple; LAWRENCE MOY,
)
individually and as a partner of the MOY &)
FERNANDEZ LAW GROUP, and
)
principal for the Law Office of Lawrence A. )
Moy, Esq.; NORMAN G. FERNANDEZ, )
)
individually and as a partner of the MOY &)
FERNANDEZ LAW GROUP, and as
)
principal for The Law Offices of Norman )
)
G. Fernandez; MOY & FERNANDEZ
)
LAW GROUP, a law partnership; DOES )
1–10, inclusive; BLACK PARTNERSHIPS )
1–10, inclusive; WHITE CORPORATIONS )
)
1–10, inclusive,
)
)
)
Defendants.
)
)

Case No.: SACV 17-00890-CJC(KESx)

ORDER DISMISSING WITHOUT
PREJUDICE FOR FAILURE TO PLEAD
SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION

26
27

On May 22, 2017, Plaintiff Fast Track Investment Company, LLC, filed this case

28

alleging five causes of action against Defendants Theresa and Stephen White, Lawrence
-1-

1

Moy, Norman G. Fernandez, and Moy & Fernandez Law Group, including breach of

2

contract, breach of fiduciary duty, constructive fraud, and unjust enrichment. (See Dkt. 1

3

[Complaint, hereinafter “Compl.”].) Plaintiff’s Complaint asserts that this Court has

4

subject matter jurisdiction based on diversity of the parties. (Id. ¶¶ 1–4.)

5
6

A district court has original “diversity” subject matterV jurisdiction over all “civil

7

actions where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive

8

of interests and cost,” and the action is “between citizens of different States.” 28 U.S.C.

9

§ 1332(a)(1). The district court has jurisdiction only if there is “complete diversity”

10

between the parties, meaning that each plaintiff is a citizen of a different state than each

11

defendant. See id.; Caterpillar Inc. v. Lewis, 519 U.S. 61, 68 (1996) (citing Strawbridge

12

v. Curtiss, 3 Cranch. 267) (1806)).

13
14

The Complaint seems to rely on 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1), which states that, “a

15

corporation shall be deemed to be a citizen of any state by which it has been incorporated

16

and of the State where it has its principal place of business.” (See Compl. ¶ 5.) However,

17

Plaintiff is not a corporation, but rather is a limited liability company. (Id.) Citizenship

18

of a limited liability company is determined not by incorporation and by principal place

19

of business, but rather by the citizenship of its members. Carden v. Arkoma Assocs., 494

20

U.S. 185, 195–96 (1990). By failing to properly plead its citizenship, Plaintiff has failed

21

to plead diversity jurisdiction. The Court sua sponte DISMISSES this action

22

WITHOUT PREJUDICE. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3).

23
24
25

DATED:

June 9, 2017
__________________________________
CORMAC J. CARNEY

26
27

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

28
-2-