Roadrunner Intermodal Services, LLC v. T.G.S. Transportation, Inc.

Filing 8

ORDER to SHOW CAUSE Why Action Should Not be Dismissed for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction, signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 8/9/2017. (Plaintiff is hereby directed to show cause within fourteen (14) days of service of this order as to why this matter should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.) (Gaumnitz, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12

ROADRUNNER INTERMODAL
SERVICES, LLC,
Plaintiff,

13
14
15
16

No. 1:17-cv-01056-DAD-BAM

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY ACTION
SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR LACK
OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION

v.
T.G.S. TRANSPORTATION, INC.,
Defendants.

17

Plaintiff filed this case on August 7, 2017. (Doc. No. 1.) The complaint cites the

18

diversity statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1332, as the basis for this court’s jurisdiction, alleging the dispute is

19

between citizens of different states and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. (Id. at ¶ 1.)

20

Plaintiff must provide further information to allow this court to establish its jurisdiction here.

21

“Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction.” Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of

22

Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). “[S]ubject matter jurisdiction of the district court is not a

23

waivable matter and may be raised at anytime by one of the parties, by motion or in the

24

responsive pleadings, or sua sponte by the trial or reviewing court.” Emrich v. Touche Ross &

25

Co., 846 F.2d 1190, 1194 n.2 (9th Cir. 1988); see also Henderson ex rel. Henderson v. Shinseki,

26

562 U.S. 428, 434–35 (2011) (noting objections to subject matter jurisdiction may be raised post-

27

trial). A limited liability company (“LLC”) “is a citizen of every state of which its

28

owners/members are citizens.” Johnson v. Columbia Prop. Anchorage, LP, 437 F.3d 894, 899
1

1

(9th Cir. 2006). Meanwhile, corporations are citizens of their state of incorporation and the state

2

in which their principal place of business—frequently called the “nerve center” and usually the

3

corporate headquarters—is located. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1); Hertz Corp. v. Friend, 559 U.S. 77,

4

81, 85–86 (2010).
The complaint alleges plaintiff “is a Delaware limited liability company with its principal

5
6

place of business in Peachtree City, Georgia,” while it believes defendant is a California

7

corporation with its principal place of business in Fresno, California. (Id. at ¶¶ 3, 4.) While the

8

allegations of defendant’s corporate citizenship are sufficient, the allegations of plaintiff’s

9

citizenship are not. An LLC’s citizenship is not determined by its principal place of business or

10

state of formation, but rather by the citizenship of its owners or members. See Johnson, 437 F.3d

11

at 899. Therefore, it is unclear from the complaint whether the parties are truly diverse.

12

Accordingly, plaintiff is hereby directed to show cause within fourteen (14) days of

13

service of this order as to why this matter should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter

14

jurisdiction. Plaintiff may discharge this order to show cause by indicating the identity and

15

citizenship of each of its owners/members. Plaintiff is reminded that, if any of its owners or

16

members are themselves non-corporate entities, the identity and citizenship of that entity’s

17

owners, members, or partners must be indicated as well. See Tschakert v. Hart Energy Pub.,

18

LLP, No. 10CV2598-L (WMC), 2011 WL 3568117, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 15, 2011) (“Courts

19

may consider the citizenship of the members’ members, and then the members’ members’

20

members and so on, because an LLC’s members may include other entities, such as partnerships,

21

corporations, or even additional LLCs.”); see also Crescent Silver LLC v. New Jersey Mining Co.,

22

No. 2:15-cv-00097-REB, 2015 WL 6958059, at *2–3 (D. Idaho Nov. 10, 2015); Century Surety

23

Co. v. Bruno India Kettner, LLC, No. 14CV2090 BEN (BLM), 2015 WL 12660420, at *1 (S.D.

24

Cal. July 24, 2015) (“A plaintiff must identify the citizenship of all of the members of an LLC

25

/////

26

/////

27

/////

28

/////
2

1

and if any member of an LLC is itself an LLC or other non-corporate entity, a plaintiff must state

2

the citizenship of that member.”).

3

IT IS SO ORDERED.

4

Dated:

August 9, 2017
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3