UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL

Case No. SA CV 20-994-DMG (DFMx) Date August 13, 2020

Title The JDIS Group, LLC, et al. v. 626 Holdings, LLC Page 1 of 1

Present: The Honorable DOLLY M. GEE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

KANE TIEN NOT REPORTED Deputy Clerk Court Reporter

Attorneys Present for Plaintiff(s) Attorneys Present for Defendant(s) None Present None Present

Proceedings: IN CHAMBERS—ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THIS ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION

On May 28, 2020, Plaintiffs The JDIS Group, LLC (“JDIS”) and Technical Holdings, LLC (“Technical”) filed a Complaint against Defendant 626 Holdings, LLC (“626”) asserting the following causes of action: (1) fraudulent inducement, (2) fraudulent concealment, (3) tortious interference, and (4) declaratory relief pursuant to

. [Doc. # 1.] On June 19, 2020, Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss (“MTD”). [Doc. # 13.]

Before turning to the merits of the MTD, however, the Court must satisfy itself of its subject matter jurisdiction. Plaintiffs assert subject matter jurisdiction based on the existence of complete diversity,

, but the Complaint fails to adequately plead “complete diversity between the parties,” namely, that Defendant is a citizen of a different state than Plaintiffs. Diaz v. Davis,

(9th Cir. 2008) (citing Strawbridge v. Curtiss,

,

(1806)); see Compl. at ¶ 6. JDIS, Technical, and 626 are all limited liability companies and are therefore citizens of every state in which their owners or members are citizens. See Johnson v. Columbia Props. Advantage, LP,

(9th Cir. 2006). The Complaint fails to plead the citizenship of any of Plaintiffs’ or Defendant’s owners or members.

In light of the foregoing, Plaintiffs are ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE in writing by no later than August 20, 2020 why this action should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

IT IS SO ORDERED.