1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9

10 BIG SKY CIVIL TR., Case No.23-cv-05208-NC 11 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 12 WHY CASE SHOULD NOT BE v. DISMISSED FOR LACK OF 13 SUBJECT MATTER META PLATFORMS, INC., JURISDICTION AND PROPER 14 REPRESENTATION Defendants. 15 Re: ECF 1, 3

16 Plaintiff Big Sky Civil Trust (“Big Sky”) filed a complaint on October 12, 2023. 17 ECF 1 (“Compl.”). This Courts ORDERS Big Sky to show cause why this case should not 18 be dismissed for: (1) lack of subject matter jurisdiction; and (2) lack of proper 19 representation. 20 1. Subject Matter Jurisdiction 21 Big Sky’s complaint does not provide sufficient information to establish subject 22 matter jurisdiction. Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and are presumptively 23 without jurisdiction. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am.,

, 377 24 (1994). District courts have subject matter jurisdiction through federal question or 25 diversity jurisdiction.

, 1332. Big Sky selected diversity jurisdiction on 26 the complaint’s cover sheet. Compl. at 4. But the complaint does not have sufficient 27 information to establish diversity of citizenship or the amount in controversy. See 28 1 || should not dismiss this case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 2 2. Representation of Trusts in Federal Court 3 Additionally, Big Sky does not have proper representation to appear before this 4 || Court. The complaint is brought pro se by trustee, David Braun. Compl. at 3-4. A trustee 5 || may not bring an action pro se on behalf of a trust. CLE. Pope Equity Tr. v. United States, 6 ||

(9th Cir. 1987) (“[Pro se litigant] may not claim that his status as trustee 7 || includes the right to present arguments pro se in federal court.”). Moreover, under Local 8 || Rule 3—9(b), “[a] corporation, unincorporated association, partnership or other such entity 9 || may appear only through a member of the bar of this Court.” Civ. L.R. 3-9(b) (emphasis 10 || added). Here, Braun is Big Sky’s trustee and is not a member of the bar of this Court. 11 || Thus, Big Sky must either show cause in writing why this case should not be dismissed for 12 || lack of appropriate representation, or it may appear through an attorney admitted to the 13 |} local bar. C 14 Given the above concerns, this Court dismisses without prejudice Big Sky’s motion 3 15 |} at ECF 3 until Big Sky establishes subject matter jurisdiction and a right to proceed. This 16 |} Court ORDERS Big Sky to show cause in writing by November 27, 2023, why this case 5 17 || should not be dismissed for the reasons discussed above. Big Sky also must file its 5 18 |} consent or declination to magistrate judge jurisdiction. See ECF 5. 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 20 21 || Dated: November 6, 2023 h-_=——— _ NATHANAEL M. COUSINS 22 United States Magistrate Judge 23 24 25 26 27 28