Belmodis vs. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.

Filing 9

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THIS ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE - Signed by JUDGE JILL A. OTAKE on 10/15/2020. Show Cause Response due by 10/30/2020. (emt, )

Case 1:20-cv-00443-JAO-RT Document 9 Filed 10/15/20 Page 1 of 5

PageID #: 270

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, )
)
INC., et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
)
)
MELINDA BELMODIS,

CIVIL NO. 20-00443 JAO-RT
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THIS
ACTION SHOULD NOT BE
DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THIS ACTION
SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE
On October 14, 2020, Plaintiff Melinda Belmodis filed a Complaint, ECF
No. 2, asserting diversity jurisdiction as the basis for subject matter jurisdiction in
this action. Compl. ¶ 28. “Courts have an independent obligation to determine
whether subject-matter jurisdiction exists, even when no party challenges it.”
Hertz Corp. v. Friend, 559 U.S. 77, 94 (2010). The Court is presumed to lack
subject matter jurisdiction, and the plaintiffs bear the burden of establishing that
subject matter jurisdiction is proper. See Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 511
U.S. 375, 377 (1994). If the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, an action must
be dismissed. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3).

Case 1:20-cv-00443-JAO-RT Document 9 Filed 10/15/20 Page 2 of 5

PageID #: 271

Federal district courts have original jurisdiction over cases where the amount
in controversy exceeds $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and where the
matter in controversy is between citizens of different states. See 28 U.S.C. §
1332(a)(1). Complete diversity of citizenship requires that each of the plaintiffs be
a citizen of a different state than each of the defendants. See Williams v. United
Airlines, Inc., 500 F.3d 1019, 1025 (9th Cir. 2007) (citing Exxon Mobil Corp. v.
Allapattah Servs., Inc., 545 U.S. 546, 553 (2005)); Morris v. Princess Cruises,
Inc., 236 F.3d 1061, 1067 (9th Cir. 2001).
The Complaint asserts the amount in controversy is in excess of $75,000,
Compl. ¶ 28; Plaintiff was at all times relevant a citizen and resident of the State of
Hawaii, id. ¶ 7; Defendant Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. (“Teva USA”) is a
Delaware corporation with headquarters located in Pennsylvania, id. ¶ 9; Teva
Women’s Health, Inc. (which later “converted” into Defendant Teva Women’s
Health, LLC) is also a Delaware corporation with headquarters located in
Pennsylvania, id. ¶ 11; Defendant Teva Women’s Health, LLC, which is wholly
owned by Teva USA, is a Delaware limited liability company with headquarters
located in Pennsylvania, id. ¶ 12; and Defendants The Cooper Companies, Inc.,
and CooperSurgical, Inc. are both Delaware corporations with headquarters located
in California and Connecticut, respectively, id. ¶¶ 14–15.

2

Case 1:20-cv-00443-JAO-RT Document 9 Filed 10/15/20 Page 3 of 5

PageID #: 272

Plaintiff’s allegations regarding the citizenships of the corporate Defendants
are inadequate. It is well settled that a corporation is a citizen of “(1) the state
where its principal place of business is located, and (2) the state in which it is
incorporated.” Johnson v. Columbia Props. Anchorage, LP, 437 F.3d 894, 899
(9th Cir. 2006) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1)). Plaintiff asserts each corporate
Defendant’s state of incorporation and headquarters location, but without more,
this fails to allege where each corporate Defendant’s principal place of business is
located, as a corporation’s “headquarters” is not necessarily the corporation’s
“principal place of business” or “nerve center.” See Hertz, 559 U.S. at 92–93 (A
corporation’s principal place of business “in practice . . . should normally be the
place where the corporation maintains its headquarters—provided that the
headquarters is the actual center of direction, control, and coordination, i.e., the
‘nerve center,’ and not simply an office where the corporation holds its board
meetings.” (emphasis added)); see also 3123 SMB LLC v. Horn, 880 F.3d 461, 471
(9th Cir. 2018) (quoting Hertz, 559 U.S. at 97). Accordingly, Plaintiff has
insufficiently pled the citizenships of Defendants Teva USA, Teva Women’s
Health, Inc., The Cooper Companies, Inc., and CooperSurgical, Inc.
Further, Plaintiff’s Complaint fails to identify the citizenship of Defendant
Teva Women’s Health, LLC. The citizenship of an unincorporated association,
such as a limited liability company, “can be determined only by reference to all of
3

Case 1:20-cv-00443-JAO-RT Document 9 Filed 10/15/20 Page 4 of 5

PageID #: 273

the entity’s members,” and not the laws under which it is organized or where it is
registered to do business. Kuntz v. Lamar Corp., 385 F.3d 1177, 1182 (9th Cir.
2004) (citing Carden v. Arkoma Assocs., 494 U.S. 185, 196–97 (1990)). Here,
although Plaintiff asserts that Teva Women’s Health, LLC is “wholly owned” by
Teva USA, as previously noted, Teva USA’s citizenship is not adequately alleged.
Absent the foregoing information, the Court is unable to ascertain whether
diversity jurisdiction exists. Accordingly, Plaintiff is ORDERED TO SHOW
CAUSE why this action should not be dismissed without prejudice for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction. Plaintiff must file a response to this Order to Show
Cause by October 30, 2020, providing complete information concerning the
citizenships of the named defendants.1 Failure to timely respond to this Order to
Show Cause will result in a finding that Plaintiff has failed to carry her burden of
establishing subject matter jurisdiction and the Court will dismiss the action
without prejudice.
//
//
//

any of Teva Women’s Health, LLC’s members are themselves unincorporated
associations, such as limited liability companies or limited partnerships, Plaintiff
shall additionally identify those entities’ members and provide their citizenships.

1

 If

4

Case 1:20-cv-00443-JAO-RT Document 9 Filed 10/15/20 Page 5 of 5

PageID #: 274

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawai‘i, October 15, 2020.

CV 20-00443 JAO-RT; Belmodis v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., et al.; ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
WHY THIS ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE

5