Baruck Bros Investments, LLC v. MM Acquisition Co., LLC

Filing 7

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE. Re: Dkt. No. #1 . MM Acquisition Co. must file a response to this order by 12/6/2017. Both parties must indicate whether they consent or decline the jurisdiction of a magistrate judge by 12/6/2017. Signed by Judge Nathanael Cousins on 11/21/2017. (Attachments: #1 Consent/Declination)(lmh, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/21/2017)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10
11

BARUCK BROS INVESTMENTS,
LLC,

United States District Court
Northern District of California

Plaintiff,
12
v.

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
Re: Dkt. No. 1

13
14

Case No. 17-cv-06642-NC

MM ACQUISITION CO., LLC,
Defendant.

15
16

Defendant MM Acquisition Co., LLC removed this case from California state court

17

on the basis of diversity jurisdiction. Dkt. No. 1 at 3. It is the Court’s duty to examine

18

whether it has subject matter jurisdiction over any case before it.

19

Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and are presumptively without

20

jurisdiction. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). The

21

defendant has the burden of showing removal of a state court action to federal court is

22

appropriate. Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992). Removal of a state

23

court action to federal court is appropriate only if the federal court would have had original

24

subject matter jurisdiction over the suit. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a).

25

It is not clear that diversity of citizenship exists here, and so the existence of subject

26

matter jurisdiction is uncertain. This is because defendant and plaintiff are limited liability

27

companies, and the citizenship of each member of both companies must be considered in

28

the diversity analysis. Carden v. Arkoma Assocs., 494 U.S. 185, 195 (1990); Johnson v.

1

Columbia Properties Anchorage, LP, 437 F.3d 894, 899 (9th Cir. 2006). Defendant did not

2

inform the Court of the citizenship of either of the LLCs’ members.

3

Thus, the Court ORDERS MM Acquisition Co. to SHOW CAUSE why the Court

4

has subject matter jurisdiction over this case. MM Acquisition Co. must file a response to

5

this order by December 6, 2017. That response may not exceed 5 pages in length.

6

Otherwise, the Court will remand this case to California state court.

7
8
9
10

Also by December 6, 2017, both parties must indicate whether they consent or
decline the jurisdiction of a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(c).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: November 21, 2017

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

_____________________________________
NATHANAEL M. COUSINS
United States Magistrate Judge

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Case No. 17-cv-06642-NC

2