Ameris Bank v. Tojik Trans LLC et al

Filing 20

MINUTES ORDER DISMISSING ACTION FOR FAILURE TO SHOW CAUSE RE SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION by Judge Fred W. Slaughter: The case is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The Clerk is directed to CLOSE this case. (Made JS-6. Case Terminated.) (jp)

__________________________________________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

JS-6

Case No. 8:23-cv-02349-FWS-KES
Date: June 4, 2024
Title: Ameris Bank d/b/a Balboa Capital Corporation v. Tojik Trans LLC et al.
Present: HONORABLE FRED W. SLAUGHTER, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Melissa H. Kunig
Deputy Clerk

N/A
Court Reporter

Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs:

Attorneys Present for Defendants:

Not Present

Not Present

PROCEEDINGS: ORDER DISMISSING ACTION FOR FAILURE TO SHOW CAUSE
RE SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION
I.

Background

On December 12, 2023, Plaintiff Ameris Bank (“Plaintiff”) filed a Complaint against
Defendants Tojik Trans LLC and Behzod Yusupov (collectively, “Defendants”) for the alleged
breach of the written equipment financial agreement and the corresponding personal guaranty of
that agreement. (Dkt. 1.) On May 7, 2024, the court ordered Plaintiff to show cause regarding
subject matter jurisdiction, (Dkt. 18), specifically as to “the citizenships of the members of
Defendant Tojik Tran LLC,” (see id at 2). In the order, court expressly cautioned that “Failure
to demonstrate a basis for the court’s subject matter jurisdiction or comply with court orders
will result in dismissal.” (Id at 3.) Plaintiff failed to respond to the order by the May 14, 2024,
deadline set by the court and has not filed a response as of the date of this Order. (See generally
Dkt.) Based on the state of the record, as applied to the applicable law, the court concludes it
lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this matter. Accordingly, the case is DISMISSED
WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
“Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, possessing only that power authorized
by Constitution and statute.” Gunn v. Minton, 568 U.S. 251, 257 (1994) (citation and internal
quotation marks omitted). This threshold requirement “‘spring[s] from the nature and limits of
____________________________________________________________________________
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

1

__________________________________________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

JS-6

Case No. 8:23-cv-02349-FWS-KES
Date: June 4, 2024
Title: Ameris Bank d/b/a Balboa Capital Corporation v. Tojik Trans LLC et al.
the judicial power of the United States’ and is ‘inflexible and without exception.’” Steel Co. v.
Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83, 94-95 (1998) (quoting Mansfield, C. & L.M. Ry. Co. v.
Swan, 111 U.S. 379, 382 (1884). Thus, district courts “have an independent obligation to
determine whether subject-matter jurisdiction exists, even in the absence of a challenge from
any party.” Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 514 (2006). “If the court determines at any
time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action.” Fed. R. Civ. P.
12(h)(3).
“The basic statutory grants of federal-court subject-matter jurisdiction are contained in 28
U.S.C. § 1331, which provides for ‘[f]ederal-question’ jurisdiction, and § 1332, which provides
for ‘[d]iversity of citizenship’ jurisdiction.” Arbaugh, 546 U.S. at 501. As relevant here,
diversity jurisdiction requires complete diversity between the parties and an amount in
controversy greater than $75,000. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a); see also Strawbridge v. Curtiss, 7 U.S.
(3 Cranch) 267, 267 (1806); Owen Equip. & Erection Co. v. Kroger, 437 U.S. 365, 373 (1978)
(“[D]iversity jurisdiction does not exist unless each defendant is a citizen of a different State
from each plaintiff.”); Matheson v. Progressive Specialty Ins. Co., 319 F.3d 1089, 1090 (9th
Cir. 2003) (“Jurisdiction founded on 28 U.S.C. § 1332 requires that the parties be in complete
diversity and the amount in controversy exceed $75,000.”); Lee v. Am. Nat. Ins. Co., 260 F.3d
997, 1004 (9th Cir. 2001) (“The diversity jurisdiction statute, as construed for nearly 200 years,
requires that to bring a diversity case in federal court against multiple defendants, each plaintiff
must be diverse from each defendant.”). If a party is a partnership, limited liability company or
other unincorporated association, the court must consider the citizenship of each of the partners,
including limited partners, or members, in evaluating jurisdiction. Carden v. Arkoma Assocs.,
494 U.S. 185, 195-96 (1990); Johnson v. Columbia Properties Anchorage, LP, 437 F.3d 894,
899 (9th Cir. 2006). If a party is a corporation, the complaint must allege both its state(s) of
incorporation and principal place of business. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c); Harris v. Rand, 682 F.3d
846, 850 (9th Cir. 2012). If a party is a natural person, the complaint must allege their state of
domicile, which is their permanent home, where they reside with the intention to remain or to
which they intend to return. Ehrman v. Cox Commc’ns, Inc., 932 F.3d 1223, 1227 (9th Cir.
2019).
____________________________________________________________________________
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

2

__________________________________________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

JS-6

Case No. 8:23-cv-02349-FWS-KES
Date: June 4, 2024
Title: Ameris Bank d/b/a Balboa Capital Corporation v. Tojik Trans LLC et al.
Because courts “have an independent obligation to determine whether subject-matter
jurisdiction exists, even in the absence of a challenge from any party,” Arbaugh, 546 U.S. at
514, “[i]f the court determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court
must dismiss the action,” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3); see also Arbaugh, 546 U.S. at 514 (“(“The
objection that a federal court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction . . . may be raised by a party, or
by a court on its own initiative, at any stage in the litigation, even after trial and the entry of
judgment.”). “While a party is entitled to notice and an opportunity to respond when a court
contemplates dismissing a claim on the merits . . . it is not so when the dismissal is for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction.” Scholastic Ent., Inc. v. Fox Ent. Grp., Inc., 336 F.3d 982, 985 (9th
Cir. 2003); see also Cal. Diversified Promotions, Inc. v. Musick, 505 F.2d 278, 280 (9th Cir.
1974) (“It has long been held that a judge can dismiss sua sponte for lack of jurisdiction.”) (fn.
omitted).
In this case, Plaintiff’s complaint expressly relies on diversity jurisdiction. (See Dkt. 1 at
2-3.) However, the court finds Plaintiff has failed to allege facts demonstrating complete
diversity as required for diversity jurisdiction. With respect to the parties’ citizenship, the
Complaint alleges that: (1) Plaintiff is a Georgia state-charted banking corporation; (2)
Defendant Tojik Trans LLC is an Ohio limited liability company with its principal place of
business in the County of Clermont, Ohio; and (3) Defendant Yusupov is an individual residing
in County of Clermont, Ohio. (See Dkt. 1 ¶¶ 1-3.) But the court observes the Complaint does
not adequately describe or allege the citizenships of the members of Defendant Tojik Tran LLC.
(See generally Dkt 1.) Because the citizenship of all members of a limited liability company
must be alleged, the court finds Plaintiff has not sufficiently alleged complete diversity between
the parties as required for subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. See NewGen,
LLC v. Safe Cig, LLC, 840 F.3d 606, 611 (9th Cir. 2016) (stating “with respect to a limited
liability company, the citizenship of all of the members must be pled”); see also Johnson, 437
F.3d at 899 (stating “an LLC is a citizen of every state of which its owners/members are
citizens.”). Because subject matter jurisdiction has not been adequately alleged, the court
concludes dismissal without prejudice of the above-captioned case is appropriate. See
California Diversified Promotions, Inc., v. Musick, 505 F.2d 278, 280 (9th Cir. 1974) (“It has
long been held that a judge can dismiss sua sponte for lack of jurisdiction.”); Fed. R. Civ. P.
12(h)(3) (“If the court determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court
____________________________________________________________________________
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

3

__________________________________________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

JS-6

Case No. 8:23-cv-02349-FWS-KES
Date: June 4, 2024
Title: Ameris Bank d/b/a Balboa Capital Corporation v. Tojik Trans LLC et al.
must dismiss the action.”); Link v. Wabash R.R., 370 U.S. 626, 629 (1962) (“The authority of a
federal trial court to dismiss a plaintiff’s action with prejudice because of his failure to
prosecute cannot seriously be doubted.”); Hells Canyon Pres. Council v. U.S. Forest Serv., 403
F.3d 693, 699 (9th Cir. 2005) (“[C]ourts may dismiss under Rule 41(b) sua sponte, at least
under certain circumstances.”); Ash v. Cvetkov, 739 F.2d 493, 496 (9th Cir. 1984) (“It is within
the inherent power of the court to sua sponte dismiss a case for lack of prosecution.”).
II.

Disposition

Accordingly, the case is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The Clerk is directed
to CLOSE this case.
Initials of Deputy Clerk: mku

____________________________________________________________________________
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

4