Unimax Communications LLC v. T-Mobile USA Inc

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE UNIMAX COMMUNICATIONS LLC, CASE NO. C23-01830-KKE Plaintiff, ORDER TO FILE SUPPLEMENTAL v. DISCLOSURE STATEMENT T-MOBILE USA INC, Defendant.

This matter comes before the Court sua sponte. Plaintiff Unimax Communications, LLC, (“Unimax”) commenced this action, asserting this Court has subject matter jurisdiction on the basis of diversity of citizenship between the parties. Dkt. No. 1 ¶ 2.1.

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require that in an action where jurisdiction is based on diversity under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a), a party must file a disclosure statement that identifies the citizenship of every individual or entity whose citizenship is attributed to that party. Fed. R. Civ. 18 P. 7.1(a)(2)(A). Each party must file a disclosure statement with that party’s “first appearance, pleading, petition, motion, response, or other request addressed to the court[.]” Fed. R. Civ. P. 7.1(b)(1).

As an LLC, Unimax “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). Unimax filed a disclosure statement, however the statement is insufficient because it does not identify Unimax’s owners/members or the citizenship of those owners/members. See Dkt. No. 2. Rather, the disclosure statement filed by Unimax addresses only the requirements in Rule 7.1(a)(1) pertaining to publicly held corporations. Id. 4 For the foregoing reasons, the Court ORDERS Unimax to file, no later than March 15, 2024, a supplemental disclosure statement that identifies the name and citizenship of each owner/member of Unimax in compliance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 7.1(a)(2).

Dated this 8th day of March, 2024.

A Kymberly K. Evanson 10 United States District Judge