Cedar Bridge, Inc et al v. Niehaus Ryan Wong, Inc et al
Filing
6
ORDER to show cause why action should not be remanded for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on 6/27/2006. (mmclc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/27/2006)
<![CDATA[
Cedar Bridge, Inc et al v. Niehaus Ryan Wong, Inc et al
Doc. 6
Case 3:06-cv-03929-MMC
Document 6
Filed 06/27/2006
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
CEDAR BRIDGE, INC., et al., Plaintiffs, v. NIEHAUS RYAN WONG, INC., et al., Defendants /
No. C-06-3929 MMC ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY ACTION SHOULD NOT BE REMANDED FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION
12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
The above-titled action was removed to federal court on June 23, 2006 on the basis of diversity jurisdiction. Diversity jurisdiction exists where the lawsuit is between citizens of different states, and the amount in controversy is greater than $75,000. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). Although defendants correctly note that plaintiffs allege more than $75,000 in damages, (see Compl. at 14), defendants have not adequately alleged diversity of the parties. Plaintiff Olive Grove Partners II, Ltd. ("Olive Grove") alleges it is a limited partnership. (See Compl. ¶ 2 .) A partnership is a citizen of all states in which one or more of its partners is a citizen. See Carden v. Arkoma, 494 U.S. 185, 195-96 (1990). Thus, defendants cannot establish diversity jurisdiction without first alleging the citizenship of each of the partners of Olive Grove. Defendants' allegation that Olive Grove is "a Texas limited partnership with its principal place of business in Austin, Texas," (see Notice of
Dockets.Justia.com
Case 3:06-cv-03929-MMC
Document 6
Filed 06/27/2006
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
Removal ¶ 3), is insufficient to allege diversity of the parties. Accordingly, defendants are hereby ordered to show cause in writing, no later than July 14, 2006, why the instant action should not be remanded for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. If plaintiffs so choose, they may file a response no later than July 28, 2006, at which time the matter will be taken under submission unless the Court, upon review of the filings, determines that a hearing is necessary. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: June 27, 2006 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?
