American Multi-Cinema, Inc. v. Manteca Lifestyle Center, LLC

Filing 16

ORDER signed by District Judge Troy L. Nunley on 9/26/2016. The Court finds that it does have subject matter jurisdiction over this case. The Scheduling Order will issue shortly. (Zignago, K.)

1
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9
10

AMERICAN MULTI-CINEMA, INC.,

11

Plaintiff

12
13
14

No. 2:16-cv-01066-TLN-KJN

ORDER FINDING THAT SUBJECT
v.

MATTER JURISDICTION EXISTS

MANTECA LIFESTYLE CENTER, LLC,

15

Defendant.

16
17
18

This matter is before the Court pursuant to the Court’s Minute Order, ordering the parties

19

to submit briefing as to whether the Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this case. (ECF

20

No. 12.) For the reasons set forth below, the Court finds that it does have subject matter

21

jurisdiction.

22

I.

23

The parties’ Joint Status Report indicated disagreement as to whether the Court has

24

subject matter jurisdiction. (ECF No. 10.) This Court issued a minute order sua sponte, ordering

25

the parties to submit briefing on the matter. (ECF No. 12.) Plaintiff American Multi-Cinema,

26

Inc. (“Plaintiff”) is a corporation, incorporated in Missouri with its principal place of business in

27

Kansas. (ECF No. 13.) Defendant Manteca Lifestyle Center, LLC (“Defendant”) is an LLC.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

28
1

1

(ECF No. 15.)

2

II.

3

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

LEGAL STANDARD

4

controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and is between

5

citizens of different states. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). The burden is always on the party seeking to

6

invoke the Court’s subject matter jurisdiction. NewGen, LLC v. Safe Cig, LLC, Nos. 13-56157

7

14-57015, 13-56225, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 16410 (9th Cir. Sep. 7, 2016).

8
9

A corporation is deemed a citizen of both the state of its incorporation and the state of its
principal place of business. 28 U.S.C. §1332(c)(1); Harris v. Rand, 682 F.3d 846, 850 (9th Cir.

10

2012). An LLC does not have independent citizenship status and instead holds the citizenship of

11

its members for purposes of diversity jurisdiction. Johnson v. Columbia Props. Anchorage, LP,

12

437 F.3d 894, 899 (9th Cir. 2006).
When information regarding a defendant’s citizenship is not reasonably available, a

13
14

plaintiff does not need to affirmatively plead, based on actual knowledge, specific details about

15

the defendant’s citizenship; it is sufficient to allege, on information and belief, that the defendants

16

are diverse to the plaintiff. Carolina Cas. Ins. Co. v. Team Equip., Inc., 741 F.3d 1082 (9th Cir.

17

2014).

18

III.

19

It is not in dispute that Plaintiff is a citizen of both Kansas and Missouri. Thus, for this

Analysis

20

Court to have subject matter jurisdiction under diversity, Defendant must not be a citizen of either

21

state. The citizenship information provided in the parties’ briefs indicates that none of

22

Defendant’s members are citizens of Missouri or Kansas. (ECF No. 13; ECF No. 15.) Therefore,

23

absent Defendant showing one of its members is a citizen of Kansas or Missouri, the parties are

24

diverse and this Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this case. Defendant has not proffered

25

any evidence that would destroy diversity. Thus, the Court finds that Plaintiff has met its burden

26

of pleading diversity jurisdiction.

27

///

28
2

1

IV.

2

For the foregoing reasons, the Court finds that it does have subject matter jurisdiction over

3
4

CONCLUSION

this case. The Scheduling Order will issue shortly.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

5
6

Dated: September 26, 2016

7
8
Troy L. Nunley
United States District Judge

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