1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3

4 ANTONIA VERDE UGALDE, Case No. 24-cv-08684-NC 5 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY 6 CASE SHOULD NOT BE v. REMANDED TO STATE COURT 7 FOR LACK OF SUBJECT ASINC., et al., MATTER JURISDICTION 8 Defendants. Re: ECF 1 9 10 11 This Court orders Defendants to show cause why this case should not be remanded 12 back to state court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Federal courts are courts of 13 limited jurisdiction. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am.,

(1994). 14 District courts have subject matter jurisdiction through federal question or diversity 15 jurisdiction.

, 1332. Diversity jurisdiction requires complete diversity 16 of citizenship and an amount in controversy greater than $75,000.

(a). 17 Defendants claim that there is diversity of citizenship because Plaintiff resides in 18 California, Defendant Advance Services, Inc. has its principal place of business in 19 Nebraska, and Defendant Syngenta Flowers, LLC has its principal place of business in 20 Delaware. ECF 1 ¶ 7–8. But “for the purposes of diversity . . . an LLC is a citizen of 21 every state of which its owners/members are citizens.” Johnson v. Columbia Props. 22 Anchorage, LP,

(9th Cir. 2006). Without information on the citizenship 23 of Syngenta Flowers’s owners/members, this Court cannot assess whether complete 24 diversity exists. 25 Accordingly, Defendants must show cause in writing by December 18, 2024, why 26 this case should not be remanded back to state court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 27 IT IS SO ORDERED. 1 2 || Dated: December 4, 2024 —<———~_ _ NATHANAEL M. COUSINS 3 United States Magistrate Judge 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

13

15

A 16

& 17 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28