1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 BAUM VISION, LLC, Case No. 8:24-cv-01931-JWH-JDE

12 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 13 v. REGARDING FAILURE TO FILE RULE 7.1 DISCLOSURES 14 OHIO SECURITY INSURANCE COMPANY, 15 Defendant. 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 1 Plaintiff Baum Vision, LLC filed the instant case against Defendant Ohio 2 Security Insurance Company in September 2024.1 Baum Vision asserts that the 3 Court has diversity jurisdiction.2 4 As an initial matter in every case, the Court must ensure that it possesses 5 subject matter jurisdiction. District courts “have original jurisdiction of all civil 6 actions where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, 7 exclusive of interest and costs, and is between . . . citizens of different states[.]” 8

. The party invoking the Court’s jurisdiction bears “the 9 burden of demonstrating that the court has subject matter jurisdiction to hear an 10 action.” Nguyen v. Cache Creek Casino Resort,

, at *2 (E.D. Cal. 11 Jan. 4, 2021), report and recommendation adopted sub nom. Hung Nguyen v. Cache 12 Creek Casino Resort,

(E.D. Cal. Feb. 16, 2021) (citing Kokkonen 13 v. Guardian Life Ins. Co.,

(1994)). 14 A limited liability company “is a citizen of every state of which its 15 owners/members are citizens.” Johnson v. Columbia Properties Anchorage, LP, 16

(9th Cir. 2006). Similarly, a limited partnership “is a citizen 17 of each State or foreign country of which any of its partners”—limited or 18 general—“is a citizen.” Grupo Dataflux v. Atlas Global Group, L.P.,

567, 569 (U.S., 2004). 20 Rule 7.1 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires that, for actions 21 based upon diversity jurisdiction, each party or intervenor “must” file a 22 disclosure statement naming and identifying the citizenship of “every individual 23 or entity whose citizenship is attributed to that party or intervenor” “(A) when 24 the action is filed in or removed to federal court, and (B) when any later event 25 occurs that could affect the court's jurisdiction under § 1332(a).” 26

27 1 See generally Compl. [ECF No. 1]. 1|| Fed. R. Civ. P. 7.1(a)(2) (emphasis added). The party or intervenor “must” file 2|| its Rule 7.1 disclosure “with its first appearance, pleading, petition, motion, 3|| response, or other request addressed to the court,” and again “promptly,” if 4|| any required information changes. Fed. R. Civ. P. 7.1(b) (emphasis added). The 5|| parties’ Rule 7.1 disclosures allow the Court to assess the diversity of the parties, 6|| and they are imperative for assessing diversity with respect to corporations. 7 Therefore, on its own motion, the Court hereby ORDERS as follows: & 1. Each party is DIRECTED to file, no later than January 17, 2025, its 9|| respective Rule 7.1(a)(2) Disclosure Statement as well as a supplemental 10 || memorandum (including supporting evidence, to the extent necessary) 11|| explaining whether this Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the instant 12|| action. 13 2. An in-person hearing on this Order to Show Cause is SET for 14|| January 31, 2025, at 11:00 a.m. in Courtroom 9D of the Ronald Reagan Federal 15|| Building and U.S. Courthouse, 411 W. 4th Street, Santa Ana, California. 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. 17 Dated:__January 2, 2025 ALY, UY pe 19 {SNITED | STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28