Houser Holdings CA, LLC v. Old Republic National Title Insurance Company
Filing
11
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: DIVERSITY JURISDICTION. Signed by Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley on 1/28/2025. Show Cause Response due by 2/13/2025. (ahm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/28/2025)
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
HOUSER HOLDINGS CA, LLC,
7
Plaintiff,
8
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE:
DIVERSITY JURISDICTION
v.
9
United States District Court
Northern District of California
Case No. 24-cv-09508-JSC
10
OLD REPUBLIC NATIONAL TITLE
INSURANCE COMPANY,
11
Defendant.
Re: Dkt. No. 1
12
13
Plaintiff Houser Holdings CA, LLC, brings insurance coverage claims against Old
14
Republic National Title Insurance Company (“Old Republic”). (Dkt. No. 1.)1 Plaintiff asserts the
15
Court has jurisdiction over this case under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 because there is complete diversity of
16
citizenship between the parties. (Id. ¶¶ 4-7.) The complaint alleges Plaintiff “is a California
17
limited liability company with its principal place of business in Willits, California.” (Id. ¶ 2.) The
18
complaint further alleges Old Republic “is a Florida corporation with its principal place of
19
business in Tampa, Florida.” (Id. ¶ 3.)
20
Because “an LLC is a citizen of every state in which its owners/members are citizens,”
21
Johnson v. Columbia Properties Anchorage, LP, 437 F.3d 894, 899 (9th Cir. 2006), Plaintiff’s
22
state of incorporation and principal place of business are irrelevant to the question of diversity
23
jurisdiction. Therefore, Plaintiff does not properly allege diversity jurisdiction. No other basis for
24
federal subject matter jurisdiction is clear from the complaint.
25
Accordingly, on or before February 13, 2025, Plaintiff shall make a supplemental filing
26
setting forth the citizenship of each member of the LLC party. See Kokkonen v. Guardian Life
27
28
Record citations are to material in the Electronic Case File (“ECF”); pinpoint citations are to the
ECF-generated page numbers at the top of the documents.
1
1
Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994) (“Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. . . . It
2
is to be presumed that a cause lies outside this limited jurisdiction, and the burden of establishing
3
the contrary rests upon the party asserting jurisdiction.”) (cleaned up); see also Hertz Corp. v.
4
Friend, 559 U.S. 77, 94 (2010) (“Courts have an independent obligation to determine whether
5
subject-matter jurisdiction exists, even when no party challenges it.”).
6
7
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 28, 2025
8
9
JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY
United States District Judge
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
13
14
15
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?