North American Capacity Insurance Company v Spiess Construction Co., Inc.

Filing 45

ORDER signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr on 7/21/11 ORDERING that Plaintiff's Compalint is DISMISSED for failure to allege subject matter jurisdiction. Since Plaintiff's Complaint is DISMISSED, the pending Dismissal Motions filed 3/17/11 and 4/20/11 5 , 22 are DENIED as moot. Plaintiff is GRANTED fourteen (14) days from the date on which this order is filed to file an amended complaint addressing the deficiencies in its Complaint. (Mena-Sanchez, L)

1
2
3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5
6

NORTH AMERICAN CAPACITY
INSURANCE COMPANY,

7

Plaintiff,

8
9

v.

15

SPIESS CONSTRUCTION CO., INC.;
TRAVELERS CASUALTY AND SURETY
COMPANY OF AMERICA; GOOD VALUE
CONSTRUCTION, INC.; STARWOOD
CAPITAL GROUP GLOBAL I, LLC;
MAMMOTH MOUNTAIN SKI AREA, LLC;
LEXINGTON INSURANCE COMPANY;
TOWN OF MAMMOTH LAKES;
TRIAD/HOLMES ASSOCIATES; PSOMAS;
SIERRA GEOTECHNICAL SERCVICES,
INC.; and DOES 1 through 100,
inclusive,

16

Defendants.
________________________________

10
11
12
13
14

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

2:11-cv-00521-GEB-EFB
ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT
WITH LEAVE TO AMEND FOR
FAILURE TO ALLEGE SUBJECT
MATTER JURISDICTION; AND
DENYING PENDING DISMISSAL
MOTIONS BROUGHT UNDER FED. R.
CIV. P. 12(b)(6) BECAUSE THEY
ARE MOOT

17
Defendant

18

Town

of

Mammoth

Lakes

(“Mammoth”)

moves

under

19

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 12(b)(1) for dismissal of

20

Plaintiff’s Complaint, arguing that the corporate Plaintiff has not

21

alleged sufficient facts to establish that diversity of citizenship

22

subject

23

Plaintiff “has not pled any facts regarding where its corporate place of

24

business is located.” (Mammoth’s Mot. to Dismiss or, in the Alternative,

25

to Stay the Action 5:25-26.)

matter

jurisdiction

exists.

Specifically,

Mammoth

argues

26

“For purposes of . . . diversity jurisdiction, a corporation

27

is . . . a citizen both of the state (or states) in which it is

28

incorporated and the state in which it has its principal place of

1

1

business.” Casio, Inc. v. S.M. & R. Co., Inc., 755 F.2d 528, 529 (7th

2

Cir. 1985) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)). “Hence . . ., the plaintiff

3

must allege both the state of incorporation and the state of the

4

principal place of business for each corporation” named in a complaint.

5

Id. at 529-30.

6

Here, Plaintiff has not alleged the state of its principal

7

place of business. Plaintiff also has not alleged the state(s) in which

8

several corporations named as Defendants have their principal places of

9

business. Nor has Plaintiff alleged the citizenship of the owners and/or

10

members of two limited liability companies (“LLC”) named as Defendants.

11

See Johnson v. Columbia Props. Anchorage, LP, 437 F.3d 894, 899 (9th

12

Cir. 2006) (stating “an LLC is a citizen of every state of which its

13

owners/members are citizens”).

14

Therefore, Plaintiff’s Complaint is dismissed for failure to

15

allege subject matter jurisdiction. Since Plaintiff’s Complaint is

16

dismissed, the pending dismissal motions filed on March 17, 2011, and

17

April 20, 2011, are denied as moot.

18

Plaintiff is granted fourteen (14) days from the date on which

19

this

20

deficiencies in its Complaint.

21

Dated:

Order

is

filed

to

file

an

amended

complaint

addressing

July 21, 2011

22
23
24

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.
United States District Judge

25
26
27
28
2

the