Ivy Hotel San Diego, LLC et al v. Houston Casualty Company

Filing 3

ORDER DISMISSING Complaint For Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction and Granting Leave to Amend. This action is dismissed with leave to amend. If Plaintiffs choose to file an amended complaint, they must do so no later than November 4, 2010. Signed by Judge M. James Lorenz on 10/21/2010.(srm)

-CAB Ivy Hotel San Diego, LLC et al v. Houston Casualty Company

Doc. 3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 IVY HOTEL SAN DIEGO, LLC et al., 12 13 14 15 16 17 ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) ) HOUSTON CASUALTY COMPANY, ) ) Defendant. ) __________________________________ ) Civil No. 10cv2183-L(CAB) ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION AND GRANTING LEAVE TO AMEND UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Plaintiffs Ivy Hotel San Diego, LLC and Kelly Hospitality, LLC filed an insurance

18 coverage action against Defendant Houston Casualty Company. Plaintiffs base subject matter 19 jurisdiction on 28 U.S.C. Section 1332. (Compl. at 3.) Because Plaintiffs failed to adequately 20 allege subject matter jurisdiction, the action is DISMISSED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. 21 The federal court is one of limited jurisdiction. See Gould v. Mutual Life Ins. Co. of N.Y.,

22 790 F.2d 769, 774 (9th Cir. 1986). It possesses only that power authorized by the Constitution 23 or a statute. See Bender v. Williamsport Area Sch. Dist., 475 U.S. 534, 541 (1986). It is 24 constitutionally required to raise issues related to federal subject matter jurisdiction and may do 25 so sua sponte. Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env't, 523 U.S. 83, 93-94 (1998); see Indus. 26 Tectonics, Inc. v. Aero Alloy, 912 F.2d 1090, 1092 (9th Cir. 1990). A federal court must satisfy 27 itself of its jurisdiction over the subject matter before proceeding to the merits of the case. 28 Ruhrgas AG v. Marathon Oil Co., 526 U.S. 574, 577, 583 (1999).
10cv2183

Dockets.Justia.com

1

The plaintiff bears the burden of demonstrating that jurisdiction is properly before the

2 court. See Thornhill Publ'g Co. v. General Tel. & Elec. Corp., 594 F.2d 730, 733 (9th Cir. 3 1979). The complaint must affirmatively allege the state of citizenship of each party. Bautista v. 4 Pan Am. World Airlines, Inc., 828 F.2d 546, 551 (9th Cir. 1987); see also Kanter v. Warner5 Lambert, Co., 265 F.3d 853 (9th Cir. 2001). Plaintiffs allege that each is organized and existing 6 under the laws of the State of California and has its principal place of business in the State of 7 California. (Compl. at 3.) Plaintiffs are limited liability companies, and this is insufficient to 8 properly allege their citizenship. 9 The citizenship of a limited liability company for purposes of diversity jurisdiction is

10 determined by examining the citizenship of each of its members. Carden v. Arkoma Assoc., 494 11 U.S. 185, 195-96 (1990). Plaintiffs do not allege the citizenship of each of their respective 12 members. Accordingly, Plaintiffs failed to adequately allege their citizenship. 13 Because the complaint does not allege the facts necessary to establish diversity as

14 required by 28 U.S.C. Section 1332, the complaint is dismissed for lack of subject matter 15 jurisdiction. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1653, Plaintiffs are granted leave to file an amended 16 complaint to supplement the jurisdictional allegations. If Plaintiffs choose to file an amended 17 complaint, they must do so no later than November 4, 2010. 18 19 20 DATED: October 21, 2010 21 22 23 COPY TO: M. James Lorenz United States District Court Judge IT IS SO ORDERED.

HON. CATHY A. BENCIVENGO 24 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 25 ALL PARTIES/COUNSEL 26 27 28
2
10cv2183