Long v. Forty Niners Football Company LLC et al

Filing 29

ORDER Further Order to Show Cause (emclc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/18/2013)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8

DANIEL LONG,

9

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

No. C-13-2919 EMC

Plaintiff,
v.

FURTHER ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

FORTY NINERS FOOTBALL
COMPANY LLC, et al.,

12
13

Defendants.
___________________________________/

14
15
16

On Friday, October 18, 2013, Defendant Forty Niners Football Company LLC responded to

17

this Court's October 16, 2013 order to show cause as to why this case should not be dismissed for

18

lack of jurisdiction. In its response, Defendant indicated that it is a single member limited liability

19

company and that the single member is Forty Niners Holding, LP, a Delaware limited partnership.

20

In light of the Defendant's response, additional information is required for this Court to be

21

able to determine if diversity jurisdiction is appropriate under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Limited

22

partnerships, like limited liability companies, are deemed to have the citizenship of each partner

23

(whether that partner is a limited partner or a general partner). See Johnson v. Columbia Properties

24

Anchorage, LP, 437 F.3d 894, 899 (9th Cir. 2006) ("[A]n unincorporated association such as a

25

partnership has the citizenships of all of its members."); see also V&M Star, LP v. Centimark Corp.,

26

596 F.3d 354, 355 (6th Cir. 2009) ("'[F]or purposes of determining diversity jurisdiction, a limited

27

partnership is deemed to be a citizen of every state where its general and limited partners reside.'"

28

(citation omitted)).

1

Because Forty Niners Holding, L.P. is a member of Defendant, this Court must know the

2

citizenship of each of its general and limited partner to determine if diversity jurisdiction is

3

appropriate. This case is analogous to Johnson. In that case, the Defendant was a limited

4

partnership that had two partners—each a limited liability company. See Johnson, 437 F.3d at 899.

5

As a result, the Ninth Circuit examined the citizenship of each limited liability company which,

6

because an LLC is an unincorporated association, required an analysis into the citizenship of each of

7

the LLC members. Id.

8
9

Accordingly, the parties are further ORDERED to SHOW CAUSE why this case should not
be dismissed for lack of diversity jurisdiction. Specifically, Defendant shall file by noon, Tuesday,
October 22, 2013, a statement which lists each partner of Forty Niners Holding, L.P. and the State of

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

which they are citizens. To the extent that an unincorporated entity is a partner of Forty Niners

12

Holding, L.P., Defendant shall, in turn, list the citizenship of each of that entity's members. See

13

Hicklin Engineering, L.C. v. Bartell, et al., 439 F.3d 346 (7th Cir. 2006) ("A federal court thus needs

14

to know each member's citizenship, and if necessary each member's members' citizenships.").

15
16

To the extent Plaintiff wishes to respond to the Defendant's statement, he shall do so by
noon, Wednesday, October 23, 2013.

17
18

IT IS SO ORDERED.

19
20

Dated: October 18, 2013

21
_________________________
EDWARD M. CHEN
United States District Judge

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2