2

3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

5 * * *

6 STELLAR SNACKS LLC, a Nevada Case No. 3:19-cv-00716-MMD-CLB limited liability company, 7 ORDER Plaintiff, 8 v.

9 JM CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING, INC., a California corporation, 10 Defendant. 11 12 Plaintiff Stellar Snacks LLC initiated this action against Defendant JM Construction 13 Engineering, Inc. (ECF No. 1). Having reviewed Plaintiff’s Complaint—which rests on 14 diversity—the Court now issues an order to show cause why the Court should not sua 15 sponte dismiss the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3); 16 Gilder v. PGA Tour, Inc.,

(9th Cir. 1991) (Federal courts “are bound to 17 address [subject matter jurisdiction] sua sponte if it is questionable.” (citation omitted)). 18 District courts have original jurisdiction over civil actions where the matter is 19 between citizens of different states, and where the amount in controversy exceeds 20 $75,000.

(a). To establish a natural person’s citizenship, they must be 21 both a citizen of the U.S. and domiciled in a particular state. Kantor v. Wellesley Galleries, 22 Ltd., 704 F2d 1088, 1090 (9th Cir. 1983). A person is domiciled in a location where he or 23 she has established a “fixed habitation or abode in a particular place, and intends to 24 remain there permanently or indefinitely.” Lew v. Moss,

(9th Cir. 25 1986) (citation and internal quotes omitted). In contrast, a corporation is a citizen only of 26 the state where its principal place of business is located, and the state in which it is 27 incorporated.

(c)(1). On the other hand, “an LLC is a citizen of every state 28 of which its owners/members are citizens.” Johnson v. Columbia Props. Anchorage, LP, 1 ||

(9th Cir. 2006). “[A]s with partnerships, where an LLC has, as one of 2 || its members, another LLC, the citizenship of unincorporated associations must be traced 3 || through however many layers of partners or members there may be to determine the 4 || citizenship of the LLC.” Zambelli Fireworks Mfg. Co. v. Wood,

(3d Cir. 5 || 2010) (citation and internal quotes omitted). 6 Plaintiff alleges that complete diversity exists because Plaintiff is a Nevada LLC 7 || with a place of business in Nevada, while Defendant is a California corporation “doing 8 || business in Nevada.” (ECF No. 1 at 2.) “[T]he Court cannot possibly determine whether 9 || complete diversity exists in this case” because Plaintiff's members have not been 10 || identified. See Satarco Kish Trading, LLC v. Wamar Int'l Grp., LLC,

, 11 || *1 (C.D. Cal. 2015) (noting that proper pleading of LLC citizenship requires identification 12 || of the LLC’s owners or members). To the extent any of those LLC members is a business 13 || entity, Plaintiff must trace the citizenship of any constituent unincorporated associations 14 || down to the individual or incorporated members. Furthermore, Plaintiff must clearly identify 15 || Defendant’s principal place of business. As “the party asserting diversity jurisdiction[, 16 || Plaintiff] bears the burden of proof,” which it has not met. Lew,

. Thus, 17 || Plaintiff's jurisdictional allegations are incomplete (ECF No. 1 at 2) and do not satisfy the 18 || diversity of citizenship requirement under

(a). 19 It is therefore ordered that Plaintiff show cause why the Court should not dismiss 20 || this case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Plaintiff will have 15 days to respond to this 21 || Order. Failure to timely respond may result in dismissal for lack of subject matter 22 || jurisdiction. Defendant may respond pursuant to LR 7-2. 23 DATED THIS 25" day of March 2020. 24 ~ ° aleee——— 26 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 27 28