Accenture, LLP v. Niu

Filing 3

ORDER dismissing action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, with leave to file an amended complaint no later than August 12, 2005. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on 7/22/2005. (mmclc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/22/2005) Modified on 7/25/2005 (aaa, Court Staff).

Download PDF
Accenture, LLP v. Niu Doc. 3 Case 3:05-cv-02929-MMC Document 3 Filed 07/22/2005 Page 1 of 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA United States District Court 11 For the Northern District of California ACCENTURE LLP, Plaintiff, v. DAVID NIU, Defendant. / No. C-05-2929 MMC ORDER DISMISSING ACTION FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION, WITH LEAVE TO AMEND 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Before the Court is the complaint filed July 19, 2005 by plaintiff Accenture LLP ("Accenture") against defendant David Niu ("Niu"). Accenture alleges that this Court has diversity jurisdiction over the instant action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1332 because Accenture is "an Illinois general partnership registered as a limited liability partnership," with offices in California, and Niu is a resident of the state of Washington. (See Compl. 1, 2, 5.) Accenture fails to adequately allege the citizenship of the parties. In particular, the Court notes that the Supreme Court has held that a partnership is a citizen of all states in which one or more of its general or limited partners is a citizen. See Carden v. Arkoma Associates, 494 U.S. 185, 195-96 (1990). As Accenture has not alleged the citizenship of each of its partners, it has not adequately alleged that this Court has subject matter Dockets.Justia.com Case 3:05-cv-02929-MMC Document 3 Filed 07/22/2005 Page 2 of 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 jurisdiction over the instant action. Accordingly, the instant action is hereby DISMISSED for failure to adequately allege subject matter jurisdiction, with leave to file an amended complaint no later than Friday August 12, 2005. If Accenture fails to file a timely amended complaint, the Court will dismiss the action, without prejudice to Accenture's pursuing the claims alleged herein in state court. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: July 22, 2005 /s/ Maxine M. Chesney MAXINE M. CHESNEY United States District Judge 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?