United Financial Casualty Company v. Bratcher

4 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA UNITED FINANCIAL CASUALTY Case No. 22-cv-03624-MMC COMPANY, 8 ORDER DISMISSING FIRST Plaintiff, AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR LACK 9 OF SUBJECT MATTER v. JURISDICTION; AFFORDING 10 PLAINTIFF LEAVE TO AMEND; MATTHEW BRATCHER, et al., DENYING AS MOOT DEFENDANTS 11 JOHN HERN AND LISA KRYTER'S Defendants. MOTION TO DISMISS 13 Before the Court is plaintiff United Financial Casualty Company's First Amended Complaint ("FAC"), filed October 21, 2022.1 Having read and considered the FAC, the Court, for the reasons stated below, will dismiss the FAC for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, with leave to amend.

17 In its Complaint, plaintiff asserts against four individuals and one entity (see FAC ¶¶ 4-8) two state law claims, titled, respectively, "Declaratory Relief on Duty to Indemnify" and "Declaratory Relief on Duty to Defend" (see FAC at 8:17-19, 9:22-24). Plaintiff alleges the Court has diversity jurisdiction over its claims. (See FAC ¶ 1).

21 A district court has diversity jurisdiction only if "the matter in controversy exceeds the sum and value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs," see 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a), and each defendant's citizenship is diverse from that of the plaintiff, see id. 24 Here, plaintiff sufficiently alleges the requisite amount in controversy (see FAC ¶ 71-72 (alleging plaintiffs in underlying personal injury action "seek[ ] to recover more On November 8, 2022, the above-titled action was reassigned to the than $75,000 in damages")), sufficiently alleges it is a citizen of Ohio (see FAC { 3), and || sufficiently alleges that each of the four individual defendants is a citizen of California (see FAC J 4-5, 7-8). Plaintiff has not, however, alleged facts sufficient to establish the || citizenship of the entity defendant, specifically, Ventura System, LLC ("Ventura"). See || Newman-Green, Inc. v. Alfonso-Larrain, 490 U.S. 826, 829 (1989) (holding plaintiff must || meet diversity requirement “for each defendant or face dismissal”).

7 According to plaintiff, Ventura "is a limited liability company organized under the || laws of California" and whose "principal place of business is in California." (See FAC q 6.) Plaintiff fails, however, to identify the owners and/or members of Ventura, let alone || the states of which each owner and/or member is a citizen. See Johnson v. Columbia 11 Properties Anchorage, LP, 437 F.3d 894, 899 (9th Cir. 2006) (holding "an LLC is a citizen || of every state of which its owners/members are citizens"). In the absence of such 13 allegations, the complaint is deficient. See, e.g., Lindley Contours LLC v. AABB Fitness || Holdings, Inc., 414 Fed Appx. 62, 64 (9th Cir. 2011) (holding district court lacked 15 || jurisdiction over action in which two parties were LLCs and party seeking to establish é 16 || jurisdiction "fail[ed] to state the citizenship of the . .. members of [each LLC]").

G 17 Accordingly, the FAC is hereby DISMISSED with leave to amend. If plaintiff 18 wishes to pursue its claims in federal court, plaintiff shall file, no later than December 2, 19 2022, a Second Amended Complaint, in which plaintiff must allege facts sufficient to || support a finding that the Court has jurisdiction over the instant action.

21 Lastly, defendants John Hern and Lisa Kryter’s motion to dismiss, filed October 7, 22 2022, is, in light of the dismissal of the FAC, hereby DENIED as moot.

23 IT IS SO ORDERED.

25 || Dated: November 9, 2022 (ein Md, Chater MAXINE M. CHESNEY 26 Unitéd States District Judge