Leah Snyder v. Alight Solutions LLC

FILED CLERK, U.S. DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA —_CW __rery

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA - SOUTHERN DIVISION

LEAH SNYDER, Case No.: SACV 21-00187-CJC (KESx) Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY V THIS CASE SHOULD NOT BE ° DISMISSED FOR LACK OF SUBJECT VACATING HEARING ON MOTION ALIGHT SOLUTIONS, LLC, and

DOES 1 TO 10, TO DISMISS

Defendant. ig ff)

In this case, Plaintiff Leah Snyder alleges that Defendant Alight Solutions, LLC wrongfully terminated her after she posted on Facebook photos of herself at the Washington, D.C. Capitol building on January 6, 2021. (Dkt. 1 [Complaint, hereinafter “Compl.”].) Plaintiff alleges that the Court has diversity jurisdiction over her case. (/d. °3 4] 2.) Federal courts have diversity jurisdiction over cases between “citizens of a State *4 || and citizens or subjects of a foreign state.” 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(2). “Section 1332 has ll been interpreted to require ‘complete diversity.” Ruhrgas AG v. Marathon Oil Co., 526 TUS, 574, 580 n.2 (1999); see Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Servs., Inc., 545 U.S. 546, *7 1553 (2005) (“[T]he presence ... of a single plaintiff from the same State as a single °8 ll defendant deprives the district court of original diversity jurisdiction.”). As the party asserting jurisdiction, Plaintiff bears the burden of proving federal jurisdiction. See Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994).

The Complaint does not contain sufficient information for the Court to determine whether it has diversity jurisdiction over Plaintiff's case. Plaintiff alleges that the Court has diversity jurisdiction because she is a California citizen and Defendant is an □□□□□□□□ LLC. (Compl. {[§| 2, 5, 6; see Case Caption.) However, Plaintiff does not allege the citizenship of Defendant’s members, as required. See Johnson v. Columbia Properties Anchorage, LP, 437 F.3d 894, 899 (9th Cir. 2006) (“[A]n LLC is a citizen of every state of which its owners/members are citizens.”). Rather, she states only that Defendant is an Illinois LLC and that its principal place of business is in Illinois. (Compl. 4 6.)

Accordingly, the Court ORDERS Plaintiff to show cause in writing by April 23, why this case should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Defendant may, but 1s not required to, file a statement by the same date. The hearing on Defendant’s motion to dismiss set for April 26, 2020, at 1:30 p.m. is VACATED and off calendar. The Court will reschedule the hearing on the motion to dismiss if the Court determines it has Jurisdiction over this case.

DATED: April 15, 2021 Ko Lo f 7

HON. CORMAC J. CARNEY UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE