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