Imperial Woodworking Enterprise, Inc. v. McClure et al

Filing 8

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE REGARDING SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION. Re: Dkt. No. 1 . Defendants must file a response to this order by 2/2/2018. Signed by Judge Nathanael Cousins on 1/23/2018. (lmh, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/23/2018)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10
11

IMPERIAL WOODWORKING
ENTERPRISE, INC.,

United States District Court
Northern District of California

Plaintiff,
12
v.
13
14

RILEY MCCLURE, 135 LLC,

Case No. 18-cv-00399 NC
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
REGARDING SUBJECT MATTER
JURISDICTION
Re: Dkt. No. 1

Defendants.
15
16

Defendant Riley McClure removed this case from California state court on the basis

17

of diversity jurisdiction. Dkt. No. 1 at 2. Riley also removed this action on behalf of co-

18

defendant 135 LLC. It is the Court’s duty to examine whether it has subject matter

19

jurisdiction over any case before it.

20

Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and are presumptively without

21

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

22

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

23

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

24

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

25

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

26

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

27

matter jurisdiction is uncertain. This is because defendant 135 LLC is a limited liability

28

company, and the citizenship of each member of the company must be considered in the
Case No. 18-cv-00399 NC

1

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

2

Columbia Properties Anchorage, LP, 437 F.3d 894, 899 (9th Cir. 2006). In the removal,

3

Riley did not inform the Court of the citizenship of 135 LLC’s members. The amount in

4

controversy does, however, meet the statutory minimum under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Thus,

5

the Court ORDERS defendants to SHOW CAUSE why the Court has subject matter

6

jurisdiction over this case. Defendants must file a response to this order by February 2,

7

2018. That response may not exceed 5 pages in length. Otherwise, the Court will remand

8

this case to California state court.

9
10

IT IS SO ORDERED.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

Dated: January 23, 2018

13

_____________________________________
NATHANAEL M. COUSINS
United States Magistrate Judge

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Case No. 18-cv-00399 NC

2