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)

Download PDF
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?