C.A.L. Cargo Airlines Ltd v Aerospace Overhaul LLC

Filing 7

ORDER DISMISSING CASE without prejudice to it being re-filed if Plaintiff can properly plead diversity jurisdiction. Signed by Judge Gloria M. Navarro on 7/21/2011. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLR)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3

C.A.L. CARGO AIRLINES, LTD.,
4
5

Plaintiff,
vs.

6

AEROSPACE OVERHAUL, LLC,
7

Defendant.

8

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 2:11-cv-01123-GMN-RJJ
ORDER

9
10

Plaintiff has filed a Complaint (ECF No. 1) attempting to invoke diversity jurisdiction.

11

However, because Plaintiff has failed to plead facts sufficient to give rise to such subject

12

matter jurisdiction, this lawsuit will be dismissed without prejudice.

13

Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, possessing only those powers granted

14

by the Constitution and statute. See United States v. Marks, 530 F.3d 799, 810 (9th Cir. 2008)

15

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

16

asserting federal jurisdiction bears the burden of overcoming the presumption against it.

17

Kokkonen, 511 U.S. at 377. A court may raise the question of subject matter jurisdiction sua

18

sponte at any time during an action. United States v. Moreno-Morillo, 334 F.3d 819, 830 (9th

19

Cir. 2003). “[W]hen a federal court concludes that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the

20

court must dismiss the complaint in its entirety.” Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 514

21

(2006) (citing 16 J. Moore et al., Moore’s Federal Practice § 106.66[1], pp. 106-88 to 106-89

22

(3d ed. 2005)).

23

Plaintiff’s Complaint alleges that this Court has diversity jurisdiction over this lawsuit

24

pursuant to 12 U.S.C. § 1332. (Compl. ¶ 3, ECF No. 1.) In support of this jurisdictional

25

allegation, Plaintiff pleads that it is “a private limited liability company duly organized under

Page 1 of 2

1

the laws of Israel, with its principal place of business located at 1 Hayarden Street, Airport

2

City P.O.B. 271, Ben Gurion Airport 70100, Israel,” (Compl. ¶ 1, ECF No. 1), and that

3

“DefendantA erospace [sic] is a limited liability company organized under the laws of the

4

State of Nevada, with its principal place of business located at 8430 WestL ake [sic] Mead

5

Blvd, Suite 100, Las Vegas, Nevada 89128 and is qualified to conduct business in the State of

6

Nevada,” (Compl. ¶ 1, ECF No. 1).

7

However, the place of organization and the principal place of business of a limited-

8

liability company (“LLC”) are irrelevant to the LLC’s state of citizenship for the purposes of

9

determining diversity jurisdiction. Instead, “an LLC is a citizen of every state of which its

10

owners/members are citizens.” Johnson v. Columbia Properties Anchorage, LP, 437 F.3d 894,

11

899 (9th Cir. 2006). It is not necessarily a citizen of the state in which its principal place of

12

business is located.

13

Nowhere in Plaintiff’s Complaint does it plead the citizenships of each of its and/or

14

Defendant’s owners/members. This omission is fatal, as the Complaint therefore fails to set

15

out facts sufficient to warrant the exercise of diversity jurisdiction. Absent subject matter

16

jurisdiction, a federal court may not continue to consider a case. Consequently, this lawsuit is

17

dismissed.

18
19
20
21

CONCLUSION
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this lawsuit is DISMISSED without prejudice to it
being re-filed if Plaintiff can properly plead diversity jurisdiction.
DATED this 21st day of July, 2011.

22
23
24
25

________________________________
Gloria M. Navarro
United States District Judge

Page 2 of 2