Ocadian Care Centers, LLC v. Clarendon National Insurance Company

Filing 10

ORDER DIRECTING DEFENDANT TO SHOW CAUSE WHY ACTION SHOULD NOT BE REMANDED. Defendant shall show cause, in writing and no later than August 25, 2006, why the action should not be remanded for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on August 16, 2006. (mmclc1, COURT STAFF)

Download PDF
Ocadian Care Centers, LLC v. Clarendon National Insurance Company Doc. 10 Case 3:06-cv-04684-MMC Document 10 Filed 08/16/2006 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 OCADIAN CARE CENTERS, LLC, v. Plaintiff, No. C-06-4684 MMC ORDER DIRECTING DEFENDANT TO SHOW CAUSE WHY ACTION SHOULD NOT BE REMANDED 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 CLARENDON NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant / Before the Court is the Notice of Removal, filed August 1, 2006, by defendant Clarendon National Insurance Company, by which defendant seeks to remove a complaint filed in state court by plaintiff Ocadian Care Centers, LLC. In the Notice of Removal, defendant alleges the instant complaint is removable on the basis of diversity jurisdiction. In support of this assertion, defendant alleges the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, (see Notice of Removal 5), and that defendant is incorporated in New Jersey, with a principal place of business in New York, (see id. 3). With respect to the citizenship of plaintiff, defendant alleges that plaintiff is a "California limited liability company [and] is an entity qualified to do business in the State of California." (See id. 2.) A limited liability corporation is a "citizen of every state in which its owners/members are citizens." See Johnson v. Columbia Properties Anchorage, LP, 437 F. 3d 894, 899 (9th Dockets.Justia.com Case 3:06-cv-04684-MMC Document 10 Filed 08/16/2006 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 Cir. 2006). Here, defendant fails to allege that every owner and every member of plaintiff is a resident of a state other than New Jersey and New York. Consequently, defendants' allegations with respect to the citizenship of plaintiff are insufficient to allege the existence of diversity jurisdiction. Accordingly, defendant is hereby ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE, in writing and no later than August 25, 2006, why the instant action should not be remanded for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: August 16, 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?