1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 SAN JOSE DIVISION 7 8 KATE KOELLER, et al., Case No. 25-cv-04549-VKD

9 Plaintiffs, ORDER DIRECTING ALL PARTIES 10 v. TO FILE RULE 7.1 STATEMENT RE CITIZENSHIP 11 NIXPLAY, INC., et al.,

Defendants. 12

13 14 On May 29, 2025, defendants Creedon Technologies USA, LLC and Nixplay, Inc. 15 removed this action from the Superior Court of California for the County of Santa Clara, invoking 16 the Court’s diversity jurisdiction,

. See Dkt. No. 1. In an action in which federal 17 jurisdiction is based on diversity of citizenship under

, all parties must file a 18 disclosure statement that “name[s]—and identif[ies] the citizenship of—every individual or entity 19 whose citizenship is attributed to that party . . . when the action is filed in or removed to federal 20 court.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 7.1(a)(2)(A). The parties have not complied with the requirement to file a 21 disclosure statement pursuant to Rule 7.1. 22 Defendants filed a statement disclosing Creedon Technologies USA, LLC’s “parent 23 corporation” and other corporations that own its corporate “parent.” Dkt. No. 2. However, for 24 purposes of diversity jurisdiction, a limited liability company “is a citizen of every state of which 25 its owners/members are citizens.” Johnson v. Columbia Props. Anchorage, LP,

, 899 26 (9th Cir. 2006). “And because a member of a limited liability company may itself have multiple 27 members—and thus may itself have multiple citizenships—the federal court needs to know the 1 EMC,

, at *1 (N.D. Cal. July 28, 2023) (quotations and citation omitted). 2 || Defendants appear not to have identified all of Creedon Technologies USA, LLC’s members and 3 || the citizenship of those members. 4 Defendants assert that Nixplay, Inc. is a Delaware corporation. See, e.g., Dkt. No. 19 at 3. 5 However, for purposes of diversity jurisdiction, “a corporation shall be deemed to be a citizen of 6 || every State and foreign state by which it has been incorporated and of the State or foreign state 7 || where it has its principal place of business.”

(c)(1). Defendants have not 8 || identified Nixplay, Inc.’s principal place of business. 9 Plaintiffs have identified the states of citizenship of each named plaintiff in their original 10 and amended complaints, but have not filed a separate statement. 11 All parties must file a statement identifying the citizenship attributed to the party as of the 12 || date that the action was filed in state court and as of the date of removal. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 5 13 7.1(a)(2); Strotek Corp. v. Air Transp. Ass'n. of Am.,

, 1131 (9th Cir. 2002) (“[T]he 14 || core principle of federal removal jurisdiction on the basis of diversity . . . [is] that it is determined 3 15 (and must exist) as of the time the complaint is filed and removal is effected.”). For defendants, a 16 || the statement must identify each member and sub-member of defendant Creedon Technologies 3 17 USA, LLC, as well as the citizenship of each member and sub-member, and must identify the 18 || principal place of business of defendant Nixplay, Inc. 19 Each party’s response shall be filed by September 19, 2025, 4:00 p.m. 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. 21 Dated: September 15, 2025 22 «oe 23 Varsvia®, LaMarche: A Virginia K. DeMarchi United States Magistrate Judge 25 26 27 28