De La Rosa v. Centennial Real Estate Management, LLC et al

Filing 6

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE Why Case Should Not be Remanded to State Court for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction. Re: ECF 1 . Defendant Centennial must show cause in writing by 3/25/2025. Signed by Judge Nathanael M. Cousins on 3/12/2025. (lmh, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/12/2025)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10
11

GLORIA DE LA ROSA,

United States District Court
Northern District of California

Plaintiff,
12
v.
13
14
15

CENTENNIAL REAL ESTATE
MANAGEMENT, LLC, et al.,
Defendants.

Case No. 25-cv-02396-NC
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY
CASE SHOULD NOT BE
REMANDED TO STATE COURT
FOR LACK OF SUBJECT
MATTER JURISDICTION
Re: ECF 1

16
17

This Court orders Defendant Centennial Real Estate Management, LLC (hereinafter

18

Centennial) to show cause why this case should not be remanded back to state court for

19

lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

20

Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins.

21

Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). District courts have subject matter jurisdiction

22

through federal question or diversity jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332. Diversity

23

jurisdiction requires complete diversity of citizenship and an amount in controversy greater

24

than $75,000. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). The removing party has the burden of establishing

25

that removal is proper. Lindley Contours LLC v. AAAB Fitness Holdings, Inc., 414 F.

26

App’x 62, 64 (9th Cir. 2011).

27
28

Here, Centennial alleges that this Court has diversity jurisdiction because Plaintiff is
a citizen of California, Defendant Centennial has its principal place of business in Texas,

United States District Court
Northern District of California

1

Defendant Windsor Fashions Holdings LLC is a Delaware limited liability company, and

2

Defendant Northridge Mall is not listed in the California Secretary of State website. ECF

3

1 ¶¶ 5, 7–8. These allegations are deficient for two reasons.

4

First, Centennial failed to allege the citizenship of the owners/members of

5

Centennial and Windsor, which are both LLCs. “[F]or the purposes of diversity . . . an

6

LLC is a citizen of every state of which its owners/members are citizens.” Johnson v.

7

Columbia Props. Anchorage, LP, 437 F.3d 894, 899 (9th Cir. 2006). Second, Centennial

8

failed to properly allege Northridge Mall’s citizenship when it merely alleged that

9

Northridge Mall was not listed on the California Secretary of State website. See Kanter v.

10

Warner-Lambert Co., 265 F.3d 853, 857 (9th Cir. 2001) (finding that a party seeking to

11

invoke diversity jurisdiction should be able to allege affirmatively the actual citizenship of

12

the relevant parties). Without information on the citizenship of Centennial and Windsor’s

13

owners/members or the citizenship of Northridge Mall, this Court cannot assess whether

14

complete diversity exists.

15

Accordingly, Defendant Centennial must show cause in writing by March 25, 2025,

16

why this case should not be remanded back to state court for lack of subject matter

17

jurisdiction.

18
19

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20
21
22

Dated: March 12, 2025

_____________________________________
NATHANAEL M. COUSINS
United States Magistrate Judge

23
24
25
26
27
28
2