1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 PALM STREET CAPITAL LLC, and 6 others, Case No. 22-cv-1932 NC Plaintifts, ORDER SUGGESTING 8 V. ADDITIONAL ISSUE TO ADDRESS CONCERNING SUBJECT MATTER 9 CAIXING XIE, JURISDICTION 10 Defendant. 11 12

= 13 At Dkt. No. 143, this Court ordered the parties to show cause concerning subject 0 v 14 || matter jurisdiction. The Court suggests that in their briefs the parties also should address

2 15 || the joinder feasibility factors in Fed. R. Civ. P. 19(b). If the Court determines that one or

& 16 || more plaintiffs do not have diverse citizenship from the defendant, then under Fed. R. Civ. 5 17 || P. 21, one option is to drop a non-diverse, dispensable plaintiff. See Louisiana Mun. 18 || Police Employees’ Retirement System v. Wynn,

(9th Cir. 2016); Sams 19 || v. Beech Aircraft Corp.,

(9th Cir. 1980) (“Rule 21 grants a federal 20 || district or appellate court the discretionary power to perfect its diversity jurisdiction by 21 || dropping a nondiverse party provided the nondiverse party is not indispensable to the 22 || action under Rule 19.”);

(defective allegations of jurisdiction may be 23 || amended, upon terms, in the trial or appellate courts). 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. 25 26 Dated: June 19, 2024 —> NATHANAEL M. COUSINS 27 United States Magistrate Judge 28