Comcast of Sacramento I, LLC et al v. Sacramento Metropolitan Cable Television Commission

Filing 17

ORDER re 16 Joint Status Report signed by Senior Judge William B. Shubb on 1/24/2017: On or before January 30, 2017, counsel for plaintiffs shall file a statement setting forth whether any of plaintiffs' owners or members are citizens of California for purposes of diversity jurisdiction. (Kirksey Smith, K)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
----oo0oo----

11
12
13
14

COMCAST OF SACRAMENTO I, LLC;
COMCAST OF SACRAMENTO II,
LLC; and COMCAST OF
SACRAMENTO III, LLC;

17
18

ORDER

Plaintiffs,

15
16

CIV. NO. 2:16-1264 WBS EFB

v.
SACRAMENTO METROPOLITAN CABLE
TELEVISION COMMISSION, and
DOES 1 through 20,

19

Defendant.

20

----oo0oo----

21
22

After reviewing the parties’ Joint Status Report, the

23

court is uncertain as to whether it has jurisdiction in this

24

matter.

25

Status Report at 5 (Docket No. 16).)

26

limited liability companies, claim that they are not citizens of

27

California, but citizens of Pennsylvania and Michigan.

Defendant is a California municipal entity.

28
1

(Joint

Plaintiffs, California

(Compl.

1

¶¶ 1-3, 8 (Docket No. 1).)

2

LLC is a citizen of every state of which its owners/members are

3

citizens.”

4

F.3d 894, 899 (9th Cir. 2006).

5

indication that their owners and members are not citizens of

6

California.

7

cannot make that assumption.

8

diversity jurisdiction is unclear.

9

The Ninth Circuit has held that “an

Johnson v. Columbia Properties Anchorage, LP, 437
Plaintiffs have not provided any

Given plaintiffs’ names and registrations, the court
Accordingly, the basis for

Accordingly, on or before January 30, 2017, counsel for

10

plaintiffs shall file a statement setting forth whether any of

11

plaintiffs’ owners or members are citizens of California for

12

purposes of diversity jurisdiction.

13
14

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

January 24, 2017

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2