Buschman v. Anesthesia Business Consultants LLC

Filing 35

ORDER to Show Cause (emclc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/18/2014)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8

ALAN BUSCHMAN

9

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

No. C-13-1787 EMC

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

ANESTHESIA BUSINESS CONSULTANTS
LLC; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive

12
13

Defendants.
___________________________________/

14
15
16

Before the is Defendant Anestheisa Business Consultants LLC's motion to dismiss Plaintiff's

17

complaint as barred by the statute of limitations. Dkt. No. 26. Defendant removed the instant action

18

from California superior court on the basis of diversity jurisdiction. Dkt. No. 1. The notice of

19

removal fails to demonstrate the existence of complete diversity in this case.

20

This Court has an obligation to assure itself that it has subject matter jurisdiction over this

21

action. See Csibi v. Fustos, 670 F.2d 134, 136 n.3 (9th Cir. 1982) (noting that lack of subject matter

22

jurisdiction can be raised sua sponte by a court at any time as it is “the duty of the federal courts to

23

assure themselves that their jurisdiction is not being exceeded”). In order for diversity jurisdiction

24

to exist, there must be complete diversity between the parties. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1); In re

25

Digimarc Corp. Derivative Litig., 549 F.3d 1223, 1234 (9th Cir. 2008). Here, in the notice of

26

removal, Defendant asserts that "Defendant ABC, both at the time the state court action was filed

27

and at present, is a resident of the State of Delaware, incorporated and existing under the laws of the

28

1

State of Delaware and has its principal place of business in Jackson, Michigan." Dkt. No. 1, at 2.

2

Plaintiff is alleged to be a citizen of California. Id.

3

Defendant 's notice of removal fails to adequately allege facts demonstrating that this Court

4

has jurisdiction. For purposes of determining diversity jurisdiction, a limited liability company is

5

deemed to have the citizenship of each of its members. See Johnson v. Columbia Properties

6

Anchorage, LP, 437 F.3d 894, 899 (9th Cir. 2006) (“We therefore join our sister circuits and hold

7

that, like a partnership, an LLC is a citizen of every state of which its owners/members are citizens.”

8

(emphasis added)). An LLC's principal place of business of state of organization is irrelevant to this

9

analysis. Because the notice of removal contains no allegations regarding the citizenship of each of
Defendant's members, this Court is unable to determine if there is complete diversity between the

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

parties and thus, whether it has subject matter jurisdiction over this dispute. See, e.g., Wagner v.

12

Spire Vision LLC, No. 13-00054 YGR, 2013 WL 941383, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 8, 2013) (remanding

13

action to state court because “Defendants have failed to allege adequately the citizenship of all the

14

parties to this action. Limited liability companies, or LLCs, are like partnerships in that they are a

15

citizen of every state where its owners and members are citizens.”); Nguyen v. BrooksAmerica, No.

16

CV 09-7054-JFW, 2009 WL 3162435, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 29, 2009) (dismissing for lack of

17

subject matter jurisdiction, in part, because “Plaintiffs have failed to specifically allege . . . the

18

citizenship of each member of the LLC defendant.”).1

19

Accordingly, the parties are ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE why this action should not be

20

remanded to California state court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Specifically, by 5:00 p.m.,

21

Monday, April 21, 2014, Defendant shall file a statement in which it lists each of its members and

22

the States of which they are citizens. To the extent that any of Defendant's members are themselves

23

unincorporated entities, the statement shall list the identity and citizenship of that members'

24

members. See, e.g., Hicklin Engineering, L.C. v. Bartell, et al., 439 F.3d 346 (7th Cir. 2006) ("A

25
26
1

27
28

The Court's jurisdictional concerns is elevated by the fact that Defendant's website reveals a
physical presence in California. See www.anesthesiallc.com/index.php/about-abc/our-locations
While this fact alone does not mean that Defendant is a citizen of California, it raises the possibility
that Defendant may have a member who is a California citizen.

2

1

federal court thus needs to know each member's citizenship, and if necessary each member's

2

members' citizenships.").

3
4

IT IS SO ORDERED.

5
6

Dated: April 18, 2014

7
8

_________________________
EDWARD M. CHEN
United States District Judge

9

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

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

3