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

Case No. ED CV 20-1909-DMG (KKx) Date September 23, 2020

Title Blanca Mejia v. Essential Services Group LLC, et atl. 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 THE COURT SHOULD NOT DISMISS THIS ACTION FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION

Pro se Plaintiff Blanca Mejia filed this action on September 15, 2020. Compl. [Doc. # 1]. She contends that the Court has diversity jurisdiction over the matter. Id. at ¶ 4. To give rise to a court’s diversity jurisdiction, a lawsuit must place over $75,000 in controversy and concern parties that have complete diversity of citizenship (i.e., are citizens of different states).

. Complete diversity means that “each defendant must be a citizen of a different state from each plaintiff.” In re Digimarc Corp. Derivative Litig.,

(9th Cir. 2008).

Plaintiff alleges that she resides in California, and that Defendants Martha Estevez and Rafael Estevez also reside in California. Compl. at ¶¶ 1-2. Defendants Essential Services Group LLC, Essential Ohio Services LLC, and Ohio Best Management LLC all appear to be owned at least in part by either Plaintiff or Rafael Estevez. Id. at ¶¶ 9, 13. Because these Defendants are all limited liability companies and are therefore citizens of every state in which their owners or members are citizens, they too are citizens of California. See Johnson v. Columbia Props. Advantage, LP,

(9th Cir. 2006). Thus, there is no diversity of citizenship.

Additionally, the amount of recovery demanded by Plaintiff is $65,200. Compl. at ¶ 24. This is below the required amount in controversy threshold of $75,000.

Accordingly, since the parties in this action are non-diverse, the amount in controversy is below $75,000, and the claims arise under state law, Plaintiff is hereby ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE why the Court should not dismiss this action, without prejudice, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Plaintiff shall respond, in writing not to exceed 10 pages, no later than October 7, 2020. Failure to timely file a satisfactory response shall result in the dismissal of this action.

IT IS SO ORDERED.