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)

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