Reynolds v. Wal-Mart Transportation, LLC

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA PHILIP ROBERT REYNOLDS and JOHN Case No.: 2:23-cv-02020-APG-BNW BRIGHAM LAWSON, 4 Order to Show Cause Why This Action Plaintiffs Should Not Be Remanded and Striking 5 Certificates of Interested Parties v. WAL-MART TRANSPORTATION, LLC, Defendant 9 Defendant Wal-Mart Transportation, LLC removed this action from state court based on diversity jurisdiction. ECF No. 1. However, Wal-Mart did not identify the citizenship of each of its members. See Johnson v. Columbia Properties Anchorage, LP, 437 F.3d 894, 899 (9th Cir. 2006) (stating that “an LLC is a citizen of every state of which its owners/members are citizens”). I therefore cannot determine whether complete diversity exists. Consequently, I order Wal-Mart to show cause why this action should not be remanded to state court.

15 Additionally, I strike Wal-Mart’s certificate of interested parties (ECF No. 3) because the certificate does not identify Wal-Mart’s citizenship as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 7.1(a)(2). I also strike the plaintiffs’ certificate of interested parties (ECF No. 6) because it also does not comply with Rule 7.1(a)(2).

19 I THEREFORE ORDER that defendant Wal-Mart Transportation, LLC shall show cause why this action should not be remanded for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Failure to respond to this order by January 12, 2024 will result in the case being remanded to state court.

22 I FURTHER ORDER that defendant Wal-Mart Transportation, LLC’s certificate of interested parties (ECF No. 3) is STRICKEN.

1 I FURTHER ORDER that the plaintiffs’ certificate of interested parties (ECF No. 6) is STRICKEN.

3 I FURTHER ORDER the plaintiffs and defendant to file proper certificates of interested parties by January 12, 2024.

5 DATED this 20th day of December, 2023.

6 □□□ ANDREW P.GORDON sits g UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 1]