Ham v. De Wafelbakkers, LLC
Filing
26
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE COMPLAINT SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION; VACATING MOTION HEARING AND DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS WITHOUT PREJUDICE, Denying without prejudice: 14 MOTION to Dismiss filed by De Wafelbakkers, LLC. Show Cause Response due by 7/16/2014. Signed by Judge Jon S. Tigar on July 2, 2014. (wsn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/2/2014)
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7
ANA BELEN HAM,
Case No. 14-cv-01462-JST
Plaintiff,
8
v.
9
10
DE WAFELBAKKERS, LLC,
Defendant.
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE
COMPLAINT SHOULD NOT BE
DISMISSED FOR LACK OF SUBJECT
MATTER JURISDICTION; VACATING
MOTION HEARING AND DENYING
MOTION TO DISMISS WITHOUT
PREJUDICE
12
13
Plaintiff Ana Belen Ham (“Plaintiff”) states in her complaint that “[j]urisdiction is proper
14
in this Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (diversity jurisdiction) and/or 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (controversy
15
arising under United States law).” Complaint for Damages, Injunctive Relief and Restitution
16
(“Complaint”) ¶ 6, ECF No. 1.
17
Notwithstanding Plaintiff’s invocation of 28 U.S.C. § 1331, the complaint does not bring
18
any federal cause of action. As for diversity jurisdiction, while the complaint discusses the state in
19
which Plaintiff is a “resident,” ¶ 8, and alleges that Defendant De Wafelbakkers, LLC
20
(“Defendant”) is an “Arkansas corporation,” ¶ 18, the complaint does not actually allege the
21
parties’ state citizenships. The complaint does not address Plaintiff’s domicile, and neither does it
22
address why Defendant is only a citizen only of Arkansas for diversity purposes. “[A]n LLC is a
23
citizen of every state of which its owners/members are citizens.” Johnson v. Columbia Properties
24
Anchorage, LP, 437 F.3d 894, 899 (9th Cir. 2006). Finally, nowhere in the complaint does
25
Plaintiff even allege that the requisite amount in controversy is satisfied, to say nothing of meeting
26
her burden to explain the basis of her conclusion that it is.
27
28
“[F]ederal courts have a continuing ‘independent obligation to determine whether subjectmatter jurisdiction exists.’” Leeson v. Transamerica Disability Income Plan, 671 F.3d 969, 976, n.
1
12 (9th Cir. 2012) (quoting Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 514 (2006)). “[T]he party
2
asserting federal subject matter jurisdiction bears the burden of proving its existence.” Chandler v.
3
State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 598 F.3d 1115, 1122 (9th Cir. 2010).
4
Therefore, Plaintiff is hereby ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE why this action should not
5
be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Plaintiff is ordered to file a written response
6
to this order no later than fourteen days from the date of this order. Defendant may, but is not
7
required, to file any response to this order by that same date.
8
The Court hereby VACATES the hearing on Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, and DENIES
the motion WITHOUT PREJUDICE. ECF No. 14. If it appears that the court has jurisdiction
10
over this action, the court will so advise the parties, at which point Defendant may re-notice the
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
9
matter for hearing. The court will then decide the motion on the currently filed papers.
12
13
14
15
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: July 2, 2014
______________________________________
JON S. TIGAR
United States District Judge
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
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?