1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 HSM HOLDINGS, LLC, Case No. 19-cv-04391-JST

8 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: 9 v. SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION; ORDER VACATING MOTION 10 MANTU I.M. MOBILE LTD., et al., HEARING 11 Defendants. Re: ECF No. 12

12 13 Defendant Joseph Cayre removed this case from state court on the basis of diversity 14 jurisdiction. ECF No. 1 at 3. The notice of removal states that “plaintiff HSM was and is a 15 Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in California.” Id. However, in the 16 complaint filed in state court, HSM alleges that it is “a Delaware limited liability company, with 17 its principal place of business in Alameda County, California.” ECF No. 1-1 at 4 (emphasis 18 added). This distinction is significant for purposes of determining diversity jurisdiction because, 19 like a partnership, a limited liability company (“LLC”) “is a citizen of every state of which its 20 owners/members are citizens.” Johnson v. Columbia Properties Anchorage, LP,

, 21 899 (9th Cir. 2006). 22 Although the complaint does not allege the identity of the members of the LLC, HSM has 23 filed a corporate disclosure statement that “HSM Holdings, LLC is owned 100% by Sotech LLC 24 (a California LLC), as the sole member and managing member.” ECF No. 9 at 2. But the record 25 is silent on the membership of Sotech LLC and the citizenship of Sotech’s members, which the 26 Court must also consider when analyzing diversity jurisdiction. See Johnson,

27 (considering citizenship of the members of two LLCs, which were members of a partnership, to 1 As the removing defendant, Cayre “has the burden of establishing that removal is proper.” 2 Gaus v. Miles,

(9th Cir. 1992) (per curiam). Thus far, he has failed to meet that 3 || burden because HSM’s citizenship is unknown. 4 Accordingly, Cayre is ordered to show cause in writing, within 14 days of the date of this 5 order, as to why this case should not be remanded for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. If HSM 6 || wishes to respond, it may file a responsive brief within seven days thereafter. 7 The December 4, 2019 hearing on Defendants’ motion to dismiss, ECF No. 12, is vacated. 8 IT IS SO ORDERED.

9 Dated: November 25, 2019 10 JON S. TIGA 11 nited States District Judge 12

15 16

= 17

Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28