CardWorks Processing, LLC v. Pinnacle Processing Group, Inc.

Filing 32

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE re: subject matter jurisdiction. Show Cause Response due by 8/30/2012; signed by Judge Marsha J. Pechman. (SC)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

8
9
10

CARDWORKS PROCESSING, LLC,

11
12
13

Plaintiff,
v.

CASE NO. C12-557 MJP
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY
CASE SHOULD NOT BE
DISMISSED FOR LACK OF
SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION

PINNACLE PROCESSING GROUP,
INC.,

14
Defendant.
15
16
The Court issues this order sua sponte. The Court has reviewed Plaintiff’s complaint,
17
which seeks damages for breach of contract. Plaintiff’s complaint states that Plaintiff is a limited
18
liability corporation organized under the laws of the State of Delaware. Dkt. No. 1, ¶ 5. Having
19
reviewed the Complaint, the Court finds and ORDERS as follows:
20
(1) Plaintiff alleges federal jurisdiction solely on the basis of diversity of citizenship
21
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). Plaintiff alleges that it is a limited liability
22
corporation organized under the laws of the State of Delaware. Plaintiff offers no
23
24
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY CASE SHOULD
NOT BE DISMISSED FOR LACK OF SUBJECT
MATTER JURISDICTION- 1

1

allegations regarding the citizenship of the members of its limited liability

2

corporation.

3

(2) The allegations in Plaintiff’s complaint are insufficient to establish the existence of

4

diversity jurisdiction. Although Plaintiff alleges that it is a limited liability

5

corporation organized under the laws of the State of Delaware, the Ninth Circuit has

6

held that “like a partnership, an LLC is a citizen of every state of which its

7

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

8

894, 899 (9th Cir. 2006). Because Plaintiff’s complaint fails to identify the

9

citizenship of each member of CardWorks Processing, LLC, the complaint fails to

10

provide sufficient allegations to establish diversity jurisdiction. See, e.g., Ace

11

Ventures, LLC v. LQK, LLC, 2006 WL 2882481 (D.Ariz. Oct. 4, 2006) (dismissing

12

complaint for failure to allege the citizenship of each member of LLC); see generally

13

Nugget Hydroelectric, L.P. v. Pacific Gas & Elec. Co., 981 F.2d 429, 438 (9th Cir.

14

1992) (noting that a plaintiff asserting diversity jurisdiction is “required to specify

15

affirmatively the citizenship of all relevant parties”).

16

(3) “[I]t is the duty of any court to ensure itself of its own subject matter jurisdiction.”

17

Ridings v. Lane County, Oregon, 862 F.2d 231, 233 (9th Cir. 1988). Because

18

Plaintiff’s complaint fails on its face to provide sufficient allegations to establish

19

diversity jurisdiction, Plaintiff is ORDERED to show cause why the Court should not

20

dismiss this case without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Plaintiff’s

21

response to this order is due no later than August 30, 2012 and shall be limited to six

22

pages. Plaintiff may also respond to this order by filing an amended complaint that

23

specifically alleges the citizenship of each member of CardWorks Processing, LLC.

24
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY CASE SHOULD
NOT BE DISMISSED FOR LACK OF SUBJECT
MATTER JURISDICTION- 2

1

If Plaintiff fails to respond to this order to show cause within the time prescribed, the

2

Court will dismiss this action without prejudice.

3

(4) The Court is aware that there is currently a motion to compel arbitration pending.

4

The Court will STAY further action on that motion until clarification of the issue of

5

subject matter jurisdiction is resolved.

6
7

The clerk is ordered to provide copies of this order to all counsel.

8

Dated this 22nd day of August, 2012.

9

11

A

12

Marsha J. Pechman
United States District Judge

10

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY CASE SHOULD
NOT BE DISMISSED FOR LACK OF SUBJECT
MATTER JURISDICTION- 3