Knuth v. Cap Patrol, LLC Ohio

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA DEAN L. KNUTH, Case No. 23-cv-1676-BAS-DEB 12 Plaintiff, ORDER REQUIRING CORPORATE 13 v. DEFENDANTS TO FILE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT CAP PATROL, LLC OHIO; CAP PATROL, LLC KENTUCKY; GEORGE E. THURNER, III, Defendants.

18 As the Court has dismissed with prejudice Plaintiff’s federal claim (ECF No. 30), Plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaint (“TAC”) alleges the Court has subject-matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s surviving state-law claims under diversity jurisdiction (ECF No. 31 ¶ 10). However, the Court unaware of the complete citizenship of the parties in this case as the corporate defendants have failed to file the appropriate corporate disclosure forms under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 7.1.

24 A federal court has diversity jurisdiction over a non-federal claim where there is complete diversity of parties and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). A limited liability company is a “citizen of every state of which its owners/members are citizens.” Johnson v. Columbia Props. Anchorage, LP, 437 F.3d 894, 899 (9th Cir. 2006). A party in a diversity case is required to file a disclosure statement ||naming and identifying the citizenship of “every individual or entity whose citizenship is ||attributed to that party or intervenor.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 7.1(a)(2). This requirement is || triggered “when any later event occurs that could affect the court’s jurisdiction under 4 1332(a).” Id. 7.1(a)(2)(B). A plaintiff dropping all federal claims and asserting diversity ||jsurisdiction is just such a “later event.”

6 Accordingly, the Court ORDERS Defendants Cap Patrol, LLC Ohio, and Cap || Patrol, LLC Kentucky, to file the appropriate corporate disclosure forms no later than || August 1, 2025.

9 IT IS SO ORDERED.

11 || DATED: July 24, 2025 (yatta Bahar 12 Hon. Cynthia Bashant, Chief Judge B United States District Court