1 FILED CLERK, U.S. DISTRICT COURT 2 3 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA —_CW __rery 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA - SOUTHERN DIVISION 10 11 LEAH SNYDER, Case No.: SACV 21-00187-CJC (KESx) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY V THIS CASE SHOULD NOT BE 4 ° DISMISSED FOR LACK OF SUBJECT VACATING HEARING ON MOTION 15 || ALIGHT SOLUTIONS, LLC, and DOES 1 TO 10, TO DISMISS

Defendant. ig ff) 9 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.”

(a)(2). “Section 1332 has ll been interpreted to require ‘complete diversity.” Ruhrgas AG v. Marathon Oil Co., 526 6 TUS, 574, 580 n.2 (1999); see Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Servs., Inc.,

, *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

1 || asserting jurisdiction, Plaintiff bears the burden of proving federal jurisdiction. 2 || See Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am.,

(1994). 3 4 The Complaint does not contain sufficient information for the Court to determine 5 || whether it has diversity jurisdiction over Plaintiff's case. Plaintiff alleges that the Court 6 || has diversity jurisdiction because she is a California citizen and Defendant is an □□□□□□□□ 7 ||LLC. (Compl. {[§| 2, 5, 6; see Case Caption.) However, Plaintiff does not allege the 8 citizenship of Defendant’s members, as required. See Johnson v. Columbia Properties 9 || Anchorage, LP,

(9th Cir. 2006) (“[A]n LLC is a citizen of every state 10 || of which its owners/members are citizens.”). Rather, she states only that Defendant is an 11 Illinois LLC and that its principal place of business is in Illinois. (Compl. 4 6.) 12 13 Accordingly, the Court ORDERS Plaintiff to show cause in writing by April 23, 14 why this case should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Defendant may, but 15 ||1s not required to, file a statement by the same date. The hearing on Defendant’s motion 16 ||to dismiss set for April 26, 2020, at 1:30 p.m. is VACATED and off calendar. The Court 17 || will reschedule the hearing on the motion to dismiss if the Court determines it has 18 || Jurisdiction over this case. 19 20 || DATED: April 15, 2021 Ko Lo 21 f 7 22 HON. CORMAC J. CARNEY

4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 25 26 27 28