1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 TEXAS INSURANCE COMPANY, A Case No. 24-cv-03496-JSC CORPORATION, 8 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: 9 DIVERSITY JURISDICTION v. 10 FAIRFIELD GREAT OAKS, LP, et al., 11 Defendants.

12 13 Plaintiff sues Defendants for claims arising from a coverage dispute. (Dkt. No. 1.)1 14 Plaintiff asserts federal subject matter jurisdiction based on diversity. (Id. ¶ 6.) Defendants 15 Fairfield Great Oaks and Fairfield Development are limited partnerships, and Defendant Fairfield 16 Residential Company is a limited liability company. (Id. ¶¶ 2-4.) Limited partnerships and 17 limited liability companies are “citizen[s] of every state of which its owners/members are 18 citizens.” Johnson v. Columbia Properties Anchorage, LP,

(9th Cir. 2006). 19 Plaintiff fails to properly allege diversity jurisdiction because Plaintiff fails to allege the 20 citizenship of each of the “owners/members” of Defendants.

21 Accordingly, on or before July 15, 2024, Plaintiff shall make a supplemental filing setting 22 forth the citizenship of each of Defendants’ members. See Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of 23 Am.,

(1994) (“Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. . . . It is to be 24 presumed that a cause lies outside this limited jurisdiction, and the burden of establishing the 25 contrary rests upon the party asserting jurisdiction.” (cleaned up)); see also Hertz Corp. v. Friend, 26

(2010) (“Courts have an independent obligation to determine whether subject- 27 1 matter jurisdiction exists, even when no party challenges it.”). 2 IT IS SO ORDERED. 3 Dated: July 1, 2024 4 5 ne JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLE 6 United States District Judge 7 8 9 10 11 a 12

15 16

it

4 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28