Bailey v. MacFarland et al

Filing 36

ORDER signed by District Judge Troy L. Nunley on 8/31/18, GRANTING Defendant's 27 motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Plaintiff is afforded 30 days from the date this Order is docketed to file an amended complaint in conformity with this Order. (Kastilahn, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

CHRISTINE L. BAILEY,

12

No. 2:15-cv-01725-TLN-DB

Plaintiff,

13

v.

14

ORDER

MICHAEL J. MacFARLAND, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
17

This matter is before the Court pursuant to Defendants Michael J. MacFarland and The

18

Public Group, LLC’s (“Defendants”) motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

19

(ECF No. 27.) Plaintiff Christine L. Bailey (“Plaintiff”) opposes the motion. (ECF No. 29.) The

20

Court has carefully considered the arguments raised by the parties. For the reasons set forth

21

below, Defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is GRANTED.1
Discussion of the factual allegations in this case is unnecessary to resolve this motion. It

22
23

is undisputed that the Amended Complaint contains only state-law causes of action. (ECF No.

24

16.) Further, it is undisputed that Plaintiff sought to invoke this Court’s subject matter

25

jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1). Section 1332(a)(1) provides as follows: “The

26

district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions where the matter in controversy

27
1

28

Defendant MacFarland filed a separate motion to dismiss for forum non conveniens. (ECF No. 22.) This
motion is DENIED without as MOOT.

1

1

exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and is between-- (1) citizens

2

of different States[.]” The Ninth Circuit has held “that, like a partnership, an LLC is a citizen of

3

every state of which its owners/members are citizens.” Johnson v. Columbia Properties

4

Anchorage, LP, 437 F.3d 894, 899 (9th Cir. 2006)
Plaintiff acknowledges that her Amended Complaint “needs to be corrected to state the

5
6

citizenship” of Plaintiff and Defendant MacFarland. (ECF No. 29 at 8.) Likewise, Plaintiff

7

acknowledges that she has not alleged the citizenship of all members of The Public Group, LLC.

8

(ECF No. 29 at 9.) Further, Plaintiff acknowledges that her allegations are deficient with respect

9

to the amount in controversy. (ECF No. 29 at 10.) Given these concessions, the Court must grant

10

Defendants’ motion.2 However, as each deficit is curable, the Court will grant Plaintiff leave to

11

amend as requested.

12

The Court feels compelled to make two brief points regarding the parties (somewhat

13

haphazard) sparring regarding the membership of The Public Group, LLC, particularly the

14

identities of the members, the citizenship of the members, and who is responsible for providing

15

this information. First, in her opposition, Plaintiff seemingly makes a request for an order

16

requiring The Public Group, LLC to provide her certain documentation. Plaintiff does this

17

without citing any legal authority whatsoever. With exceptions not relevant here, “[a] request for

18

a court order must be made by motion.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 7(b). Further, briefing in support of that

19

motion should “state with particularity the grounds for seeking the order.” Fed. R. Civ. P.

20

7(b)(1)(B). Second, on a related point, Defendants’ reply entirely fails to mention Carolina

21

Casualty Insurance Co. v. Team Equipment, Inc., 741 F.3d 1082 (9th Cir. 2014), despite its

22

seemingly obvious application and ready accessibility through a basic Westlaw search. Future

23

briefing by either party on this topic should address that case. Given the poverty of briefing, the

24

Court declines to further discuss this subject in connection with this motion.

25

///

26

///

27
As Defendant’s motion is resolved on diversity grounds, the Court does not reach Defendants’ alternative
arguments which are premised on the Court finding § 1332(a)(1) is satisfied.
2

28

2

1

For the reasons set forth, Defendant’s motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter

2

jurisdiction is hereby GRANTED. Plaintiff is hereby afforded 30 days from the date this Order is

3

docketed to file an amended complaint in conformity with this Order.

4

IT IS SO ORDERED.

5
6

Dated: August 31, 2018

7
8
9

Troy L. Nunley
United States District Judge

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