Marco Cabezas v. Flint Group

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL

Case No. CV 21-6389-MWF (MRWx) Date: August 24, 2021 Title: Marco Cabezas v. Flint Group et al.

Present: The Honorable MICHAEL W. FITZGERALD, U.S. District Judge Deputy Clerk: Court Reporter:

Rita Sanchez Not Reported

Attorneys Present for Plaintiff: Attorneys Present for Defendant: None Present None Present

Proceedings (In Chambers): ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: SUBJECT- MATTER JURISDICTION

Plaintiff Marco Cabezas initiated this action against Defendant Flint Group on August 6, 2021, alleging only state law claims arising from his employment with Defendant. (Complaint (Docket No. 1)). “[F]ederal courts have an independent obligation to ensure that they do not exceed the scope of their jurisdiction.” Henderson ex rel. Henderson v. Shinseki, 562 U.S. 428, 434 (2011) (assessing whether a provision of a federal statute had jurisdictional consequences).

Diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332 requires that the amount in controversy exceed $75,000 and that the parties meet the complete diversity rule. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a); Newman-Green, Inc. v. Alfonzo-Larrain, 490 U.S. 826, 829 (1989). For complete diversity to exist, the state citizenship of every plaintiff must differ from the state citizenship of every defendant. Newman-Green, 490 U.S. at 829. In the case of limited liability companies, the company is considered a citizen of every state of which its owners or members are citizens. Johnson v. Columbia Props. Anchorage, LP, 437 F.3d 894, 889 (9th Cir. 2006) (“We . . . join our sister circuits and hold that, like a partnership, an LLC is a citizen of every state of which its owners/members are citizens.”).

The Complaint contains no jurisdictional allegations; it alleges neither the citizenship of Defendant, nor the amount in controversy. (See generally Complaint).

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL

Case No. CV 21-6389-MWF (MRWx) Date: August 24, 2021 Title: Marco Cabezas v. Flint Group et al.

Accordingly, the Court ORDERS Plaintiff to show cause, in writing, on or before September 2, 2021, why this action should not be dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Plaintiff’s failure to respond by September 2, 2021, will result in dismissal of the action without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.