Houser Holdings CA, LLC v. Old Republic National Title Insurance Company
Houser Holdings CA, LLC v. Old Republic National Title Insurance Company
Trial Court Opinion
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 HOUSER HOLDINGS CA, LLC, Case No. 24-cv-09508-JSC
8 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: 9 v. DIVERSITY JURISDICTION
10 OLD REPUBLIC NATIONAL TITLE Re: Dkt. No. 1 INSURANCE COMPANY, 11 Defendant.
12 13 Plaintiff Houser Holdings CA, LLC, brings insurance coverage claims against Old 14 Republic National Title Insurance Company (“Old Republic”). (Dkt. No. 1.)1 Plaintiff asserts the 15 Court has jurisdiction over this case under
28 U.S.C. § 1332because there is complete diversity of 16 citizenship between the parties. (Id. ¶¶ 4-7.) The complaint alleges Plaintiff “is a California 17 limited liability company with its principal place of business in Willits, California.” (Id. ¶ 2.) The 18 complaint further alleges Old Republic “is a Florida corporation with its principal place of 19 business in Tampa, Florida.” (Id. ¶ 3.) 20 Because “an LLC is a citizen of every state in which its owners/members are citizens,” 21 Johnson v. Columbia Properties Anchorage, LP,
437 F.3d 894, 899(9th Cir. 2006), Plaintiff’s 22 state of incorporation and principal place of business are irrelevant to the question of diversity 23 jurisdiction. Therefore, Plaintiff does not properly allege diversity jurisdiction. No other basis for 24 federal subject matter jurisdiction is clear from the complaint. 25 Accordingly, on or before February 13, 2025, Plaintiff shall make a supplemental filing 26 setting forth the citizenship of each member of the LLC party. See Kokkonen v. Guardian Life 27 1 Ins. Co. of Am.,
511 U.S. 375, 377(1994) (‘Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. □ □ . It 2 || is to be presumed that a cause lies outside this limited jurisdiction, and the burden of establishing 3 || the contrary rests upon the party asserting jurisdiction.”) (cleaned up); see also Hertz Corp. v. 4 || Friend,
559 U.S. 77, 94(2010) (“Courts have an independent obligation to determine whether 5 subject-matter jurisdiction exists, even when no party challenges it.”). 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 Dated: January 28, 2025 8 9 ne ACQWELINE SCOTT CORLEY 10 United States District Judge 11 12
15 16
it
4 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Reference
- Status
- Unknown