CFILEV Clerk District Court 1 MAR 23 2023 2 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN MARIANA ISLANDS By the Northerp,Matiana Isla 3 (Deputy □□□□□□ 4 SUPERTECH, INC. Case No. 1:23-cv-00002 5 Plaintiff, 6 Vv. DECISION AND ORDER SUA SPONTE 7|| MY CHOICE SOFTWARE, LLC, DISMISSING COMPLAINT FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION 8 Defendant. 9 10 11 Plaintiff Supertech, Inc. filed a complaint against Defendant My Choice Software, LLC assertin; 12 || diversity jurisdiction and alleging fraud, breach of contract, promissory estoppel, and unjust enrichment 13 (Compl. 1, 10, 12-13; ECF No. 1.) Defendant filed a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction 14 improper venue, and failure to state a claim, or to alternatively, transfer the case. (Mot. Dismiss, ECF No 15 6.) Subsequently, the parties filed a stipulation to modify the briefing schedule and hearing date of th 16 7 motion to dismiss. (Stip., ECF No. 10.) However, a review of the complaint reveals that subject matte

1g || Jurisdiction has not been properly pleaded; therefore, the Court issues this decision and order sua spont 19 || dismissing the complaint for lack of jurisdiction and granting Plaintiff leave to amend its complaint. 20 I. BACKGROUND 71 The facts as alleged in the complaint, in relevant part, are as follows. Plaintiff is a Commonwealtl 22 of the Northern Mariana Islands (“CNMI”) corporation with its principal place of business in the CNMI 23 (Compl. § 3.) Defendant is a California limited liability company with its principal place of business 1 24 25 California. Ud. § 4.) 26 Il. LEGAL STANDARD 27 Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction empowered to hear only those cases authorized by th 28 || Constitution or by Congress. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am.,

(1994). A cour

1 must dismiss a case if it determines that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). 2 Federal courts have diversity jurisdiction over “all civil actions where the matter in controversy exceeds 3 the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and is between-- (1) citizens of different States; 4 (2) citizens of a State and citizens or subjects of a foreign state . . . ; (3) citizens of different States and in which 5 citizens or subjects of a foreign state are additional parties[.]”

(a). “The party seeking to invoke 6 the district court’s diversity jurisdiction always bears the burden of both pleading and proving diversity 7 jurisdiction.” Rainero v. Archon Corp.,

(9th Cir. 2016) (quoting NewGen, LLC v. Safe Cig, 8 LLC,

, 613–14 (9th Cir. 2016)). “In cases where entities rather than individuals are litigants, 9 10 diversity jurisdiction depends on the form of the entity.” Johnson v. Columbia Props. Anchorage, LP,

(9th Cir. 2006). For example, a corporation is a citizen of the state of incorporation and the state where 12 its principal place of business is located.

In contrast, LLCs are “citizens of every state of which its 13 owners/members are citizens.”

“[W]here an LLC is a member of another LLC, the citizenship of the ‘sub- 14 member’ LLC is likewise defined by the citizenships of its own members.” 19th Capital Grp., Inc. v. 3 GGG’s 15 Truck Lines, Inc., No. CV 18-2493 PA (RAOx),

, at *4,

16 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 3, 2018) (citations omitted). For individuals, citizenship in a state requires United States 17 citizenship and is determined by domicile. Kanter v. Warner-Lambert Co.,

(9th Cir. 2001). 18 III. DISCUSSION 19 20 In its complaint, Plaintiff asserts diversity jurisdiction pursuant to

. (Compl. ¶ 1.) 21 However, the Court concludes it does not have diversity jurisdiction based on the complaint as presently 22 alleged. This Court has previously recognized its lack of diversity jurisdiction when plaintiffs failed to 23 adequately plead the citizenship of businesses. See Pac. Rim Land Dev., LLC v. Imperial Pac. Int’l (CNMI), 24 LLC, No. 19-CV-00016,

, at *3-4 (D. N. Mar. I. Dec. 4, 2019) (dismissing complaint 25 for failure to adequately plead diversity jurisdiction); Saipan Dev., LLC v. Commonwealth Utilities Corp., 26 No. 1:13-CV-00024,

, at *2 (D. N. Mar. I. June 24, 2014) (noting the Court’s inability 27 28 to exercise diversity jurisdiction when LLC party’s citizenship was not adequately plead); Order Sua 1 |} Sponte Dismissing Complaint with Leave to Amend; and Denying Motion for Service by Publication a 2 || Moot, Bridge Capital, LLC v. Wilson, No. 1:22-cv-00012, (D. N. Mar. I. Feb. 1, 2023), ECF No. 3. 3 Here, Plaintiff has failed to sufficiently plead the citizenship of Defendant My Choice Software LLC, which requires dismissal of its complaint. See Thermax Inc. v. Coachillin Energy Co., LLC, No EDCV 20-1984 DSF (KKx),

, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 7, 2020) (ordering □□□

7 plaintiff to file an amended complaint correcting jurisdictional allegations as it failed to properly plead th g || citizenship of a LLC party). Because Defendant is an LLC, Plaintiff must identify Defendant’s members an 9 || their citizenships. Since the complaint lacks these allegations, Plaintiff has not met its burden to establisl 10 diversity jurisdiction. See Lindley Countours, LLC v. AABB Fitness Holdings, Inc., 414 Fed. App’x 62, 64-6: (9th Cir. 2011) (holding that appellees failed to establish complete diversity because while they identified th 12 partners that comprised one defendant limited partnership, they “d[id] not identify of what state [those partners are a citizen nor whether they are comprised of another layer of partnerships”). IV. CONCLUSION

16 Because Plaintiff has not adequately plead diversity jurisdiction, the Court sua sponte □□□□□□□□□ 7 the complaint, but grants Plaintiff leave to amend its complaint to correct the deficiencies. Plaintiff? 18 amended complaint is due fourteen days from issuance of this order. As such, the motion to dismiss (EC] 19 No. 6) is mooted and the hearing currently set for April 20, 2023 is VACATED. Because the Court lack 0 subject matter jurisdiction as presently alleged, it need not consider Defendant’s arguments raised in its motio1 >] to dismiss. For this reason, the Court expresses no opinion on the merits of those arguments. Finally, the pendin; 09 stipulation (ECF No. 10) is also mooted. 3 IT IS SO ORDERED this 23% day of March, 2023. 24 25 git Motes = ALLMA RTH □ RAMONA V. MANGIONA 26 Chief Judge 27 28