Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_20-cv-00543/USCOURTS-cand-5_20-cv-00543-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Other Contract

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DANIEL HSIEH and TERESA CHIU,

Plaintiffs,

v.

JOE WU, GLORIA WU, SUNRISE INN 

FOOD PLAZA, LP, and UNITED 

VENTURE REGIONAL CENTER, 

LLC,

Defendants.

Case No. 20-cv-00543-NC 

ORDER DISMISSING CASE FOR 

LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER 

JURISDICTION

In Carden v. Arkoma Assocs., the Supreme Court held that limited partnerships are 

citizens of every state of which their partners are citizens, regardless of whether those 

partners are general or limited. 494 U.S. 18 U.S. 195–96 (1990); see also Johnson v. 

Columbia Properties Anchorage, LP, 437 F.3d 894, 899 (9th Cir. 2006) (holding that “[a]n 

unincorporated association . . . has the citizenships of all of its members.”). A result of this 

holding is that no partners can ever assert diversity jurisdiction in a suit against their 

partnership. See Whalen v. Carter, 954 F.2d 1087, 1095 (5th Cir. 1992); Buckley v. 

Control Data Corp., 923 F.3d 96, 97 (8th Cir. 1991); Curley v. Brignoli, Curley, & 

Roberts Assocs., 915 F.2d 81, 84 (2d Cir. 1990). 

The complaint in this case alleged that the Court had diversity jurisdiction under 28 

U.S.C. § 1332(a). Dkt. No. 1, Complaint, at 2. It alleged that one defendant, Sunrise Inn 

Food Plaza, is a limited liability partnership and that another defendant, United Venture 

Case 5:20-cv-00543-NC Document 29 Filed 04/28/20 Page 1 of 3
 2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Regional Center, is a limited liability corporation. Id. The complaint did not identify the 

citizenship of the owners or members of either SIFP or UVRC. The Court therefore 

ordered the parties to show cause why it had subject matter jurisdiction over this case. 

Dkt. No. 26. 

The parties responded with a joint filing stating that United Venture Regional 

Center’s two members—defendants Joe Wu and Gloria Wu—are both citizens of 

California. Dkt. No. 28 at 1. They further state that Sunrise Inn Food Plaza’s five 

members are citizens of California, Washington State, and Canada. Id. at 1–2. Plaintiffs 

Daniel Hsieh and Teresa Chiu are citizens of Canada. Id. Teresa Chiu is a limited partner 

of SIFP. Under Carden, then, the plaintiffs cannot assert diversity jurisdiction in this suit 

against SIFP. 

The parties state that “[i]f an exception to the Supreme Court’s rule existed 

allowing a limited partner to claim diversity jurisdiction when suing a partnership, then 

diversity would exist here.” Id. at 2. However, they were “unable to locate a case 

establishing such an exception” to the Carden rule in the Ninth Circuit. Id. They identify 

two California District Court cases applying Carden that similarly find no such exception. 

See Soward v. The & Tr., Case No. 07-cv-03984-MMC, 2007 WL 2947425, at *2 (N.D. 

Cal. Oct. 9, 2007); see also Boulder Creek Co. v. Maruko Inc., 772 F. Supp. 1150, 1153 

(C.D. Cal. 1991). They invite the Court to rely on any such exception of which it is aware. 

Id.

The Court is aware of no exception to the Carden rule. In fact, the Ninth Circuit 

held in Fadal Machining Centers, LLC v. Mid-Atlantic CNC, Inc., that the citizenship of

even a limited member of a partnership determines the citizenship of that partnership. 464 

F. App’x 672, 673 (9th Cir. 2012). There, the Ninth Circuit stated that “the character of [a 

member’s] membership interest is irrelevant to the determination of its citizenship.” Id. 

(citing Carden, 494 U.S. at 192 (“We have never held that an artificial entity, suing or 

being sued in its own name, can invoke the diversity jurisdiction of the federal courts 

based on the citizenship of some but not all of its members.”)).

Case 5:20-cv-00543-NC Document 29 Filed 04/28/20 Page 2 of 3
 3

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

“Rules governing subject matter jurisdiction are ‘inflexible and without exception.’”

Fadal Machining Centers, LLC, 464 F. App’x at 673–74 (quoting Carden, 494 U.S. at 

195). Therefore, the Court FINDS that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this case 

because Teresa Chiu, a citizen of Canada, is both a plaintiff and a limited member of 

defendant partnership Sunrise Inn Food Plaza. The Court would have subject matter 

jurisdiction over this case if plaintiffs dismissed defendant SIFP and moved forward only 

against defendants UVRC, Joe Wu, and Gloria Wu. However, in their response to the

Court’s order to show cause, the parties jointly state that if the Court cannot exercise 

subject matter jurisdiction over SIFP, then “the case should be dismissed, without 

prejudice to Plaintiff’s ability to refile in State Court.” Dkt. No. 28 at 2. The Court 

understands this to mean that the plaintiffs do not wish to dismiss SIFP from the case. As 

such, the Court hereby DISMISSES this case without prejudice for lack of subject matter

jurisdiction.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 28, 2020 _____________________________________

NATHANAEL M. COUSINS

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:20-cv-00543-NC Document 29 Filed 04/28/20 Page 3 of 3