Falconpoint Unlimited, LLC v. Senn et al

Filing 11

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE: Plaintiff must amend its complaint to plead an adequate basis for diversity jurisdiction, or show cause in writing why this action should not be dismissed for lack of federal subject matter jurisdiction by 7/18/2014. Plaintiff must also file consent or declination to proceed before a magistrate judge by 7/18/2014. Signed by Judge Nathanael Cousins on 6/27/2014. (Attachments: # 1 Consent/Declination)(lmh, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/27/2014)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 10 11 FALCONPOINT UNLIMITED, LLC, a 12 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE Plaintiff, 13 14 Case No. 14-cv-02342 NC Delaware limited liability company, Re: Dkt. No. 1 v. KEVIN J. SENN, ESQ., an individual, 15 SENN LAW, a professional corporation, RANDOLPH MCCONVILLE, an 16 individual; MONA MCCONVILLE, an 17 18 individual; DOES 1 through 50, Defendants. 19 20 Plaintiff Falconpoint Unlimited, LLC brings this action for fraud and breach of 21 contract against defendants Randolph and Mona McConville, Kevin J. Senn, and Senn Law. 22 Dkt. No. 1. The complaint asserts that this Court has subject matter jurisdiction based on 23 diversity under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). Id. ¶ 12. However, the complaint does not contain 24 sufficient allegations to establish the citizenship of the parties for diversity purposes. 25 Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and are presumptively without 26 jurisdiction. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). A 27 federal court may dismiss an action on its own motion if it finds that it lacks subject matter 28 jurisdiction over the action. Fiedler v. Clark, 714 F.2d 77, 78-79 (9th Cir. 1983); see also Case No. 14-cv-02342 NC ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 1 Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3) (“If the court determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter 2 jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action.”). 3 District courts have diversity jurisdiction over “all civil actions where the matter in 4 controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs” and the 5 action is between: “(1) citizens of different States; (2) citizens of a State and citizens or 6 subjects of a foreign state . . . ; (3) citizens of different States and in which citizens or 7 subjects of a foreign state are additional parties; and (4) a foreign state . . . as plaintiff and 8 citizen of a State or of different States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1332. A natural person’s state 9 citizenship is determined by her state of domicile. Kanter v. Warner-Lambert Co., 265 F.3d 10 853, 857 (9th Cir. 2001). “A person’s domicile is her permanent home, where she resides 11 with the intention to remain or to which she intends to return. . . . A person residing in a 12 given state is not necessarily domiciled there, and thus is not necessarily a citizen of that 13 state.” Id. 14 The complaint here alleges that Defendant Kevin J. Senn, Esq. is “an individual 15 residing in the County of Contra Costa, California.” Dkt. No. 1 ¶ 7. The complaint further 16 alleges that defendants Randolph and Mona McConville are individuals “residing in the 17 State of Nevada.” Id. ¶¶ 9-10. Because the complaint only alleges the residence and not 18 the domicile or citizenship of the individual defendants, it is insufficient to establish 19 diversity. 20 Furthermore, the diversity statute provides that “a corporation shall be deemed to be a 21 citizen of every State and foreign state by which it has been incorporated and of the State or 22 foreign state where it has its principal place of business.” 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1). Unlike a 23 corporation, a partnership and an LLC are treated for purposes of diversity as citizens of 24 every state of which their owners/members are citizens. See Johnson v. Columbia 25 Properties Anchorage, LP, 437 F.3d 894, 899 (9th Cir. 2006); Cosgrove v. Bartolotta, 150 26 F.3d 729, 731 (7th Cir. 1998). Moreover, if any member of a partnership or an LLC is itself 27 a partnership or association (or another LLC), the Court needs to know the citizenship of 28 each “sub-member” as well. V & M Star, LP v. Centimark Corp., 596 F.3d 354, 356 (6th Case No. 14-cv-02342 NC ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 2 1 Cir. 2010). 2 Th complain here alleg that pla he nt ges aintiff Falco onpoint is a “Delaware limited liab e bility y p ace ness a orida. It is wholly-ow wned 3 company with its principal pla of busin in Boca Raton, Flo naged by Woodbridge Baric.” Dk No. 1 ¶ 5 The com W kt. 5. mplaint furth alleges t her that 4 and man ridge is “a Delaware lim D mited liabil compan with its p lity ny principal place of busin in ness 5 Woodbr aton, Florid da.” Id. ¶ 6. The comp plaint fails t allege the citizenship of the to e 6 Boca Ra rs, ers, odbridge. 7 member and any sub-membe of Woo 8 Be ecause the complaint does not con c d ntain suffic cient allegat tions to esta ablish that t there is te hip n and ndants, by J July 18, 2014, 9 complet diversity of citizensh between plaintiff a all defen f nd ad uate or y 10 plaintiff must amen its complaint to plea an adequ basis fo diversity jurisdiction, or 0 ause ing is ould bject 11 show ca in writi why thi action sho not be dismissed for lack of federal sub 1 urisdiction. If plaintiff is unable to allege the citizenshi of all def ff t ip fendants wi ithout 12 matter ju 2 ery i tiff so onse order 13 conducting discove on this issue, plaint should s indicate in its respo to the o 3 14 to show cause. 4 15 5 Pl laintiff must also conse or declin the jurisdiction of a magistrate judge by J ent ne e July 4. ched consen nt/declinatio form. on 16 18, 2014 See attac 6 17 7 IT IS SO OR T RDERED. 18 8 Date: June 27 2014 7, 19 9 _________ __________ ____ _____ Nath hanael M. C Cousins Unit States M ted Magistrate J Judge 20 0 21 1 22 2 23 3 24 4 25 5 26 6 27 7 28 8 Case No. 14-cv-0234 NC 42 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE R 3

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?