United States District Court for the Central District of California, 2025

1144 Hope ST, LLC v. STS Remodeling Corp

1144 Hope ST, LLC v. STS Remodeling Corp
United States District Court for the Central District of California · Decided February 18, 2025
1144 Hope ST, LLC v. STS Remodeling Corp

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Case No. CV 25-0687 FMO (BFMx) Date February 18, 2025 Title 1144 Hope St, LLC v. STS Remodeling Corp., et al.

Present: The Honorable Fernando M. Olguin, United States District Judge Vanessa Figueroa None None Deputy Clerk Court Reporter / Recorder Tape No. Attorney Present for Plaintiff(s): Attorney Present for Defendant(s): None Present None Present Proceedings: (In Chambers) Order to Show Cause Re: Jurisdiction On January 27, 2025, plaintiff 1144 Hope St, LLC filed this action against STS Remodeling Corp. and Craig C. Haveson asserting a single state law claim. (See Dkt. 1, Complaint). Federal subject matter jurisdiction is based on diversity jurisdiction. (See id. at {| 7).

However, plaintiff has failed to put forth sufficient allegations for the court to determine whether it has diversity jurisdiction. More specifically, the citizenship of plaintiff is unclear.

Accordingly, IT |S ORDERED THAT plaintiff shall file a First Amended Complaint setting forth its citizenship no later than February 25, 2025. Failure to file a First Amended Complaint by the deadline set forth above shall be deemed as consent to the dismissal of the action without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction and/or failure to comply with a court order. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 629-30, 82 S.Ct. 1386, 1388 (1962); Edwards v. Marin Park, Inc., 356 F.3d 1058, 1065 (9th Cir. 2004) (“The failure of the plaintiff eventually to respond to the court’s ultimatum — either by amending the complaint or by indicating to the court that it will not do so — is properly met with the sanction of a Rule 41(b) dismissal.”); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-63 (9th Cir. 1992) (affirming dismissal for failure to file amended complaint as ordered by district court).

00 : 00 Initials of Preparer vdr

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.