Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cv-00448/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cv-00448-5/pdf.json

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAKAVIA MANAGEMENT CORP., et 

al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

BRANDON BIGELOW, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 1:20-cv-00448-NONE-SKO

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE CONCERNING 

SUBJECT-MATTER JURISDICTION

(Doc. Nos. 38, 40, 41)

On June 19, 2020, plaintiffs Dakavia Management Corp., Monte Vista Estate, LLC and 

Lamar Estate, LLC (“plaintiffs”) filed a first amended complaint (“FAC”) against seven 

individual defendants, nine entity defendants, and Does 1–50 (“defendants”). (Doc. No. 38.) 

Richard A. Green and Razmik Zakarian (“cross-claimants”) filed an answer to the FAC and 

crossclaim on July 10, 2020. (Doc. Nos. 40 (answer) & 40-1 (cross-claim).) Certain other 

defendants filed a motion to dismiss the FAC on July 10, 2020 and a motion for imposition of 

sanctions on August 5, 2020. (Doc. Nos. 41 & 57.) Both the FAC and the cross-claim allege that 

this court has jurisdiction over this action under the diversity statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1332. (Doc. 

Nos. 38 ¶ 2; 40-1 ¶ 1.) 

/////

Case 1:20-cv-00448-JLT-SKO Document 67 Filed 08/18/21 Page 1 of 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

2

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a), federal district courts have jurisdiction over certain actions 

between citizens of different states. Complete diversity is a requirement of 28 U.S.C. § 1332. 

Thus, the “citizenship of each plaintiff [must be] diverse from the citizenship of each defendant.” 

Caterpillar Inc. v. Lewis, 519 U.S. 61, 68 (1996). For diversity purposes, the citizenship of an 

individual is “determined by her state of domicile, not her state of residence.” Kanter v. WarnerLamber Co., 265 F.3d 853, 857 (9th Cir. 2001). Corporations are citizens of their states of 

incorporation and their principal places of business. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c); Harris v. Rand, 682 

F.3d 846, 850 (9th Cir. 2012). A limited liability company (“LLC”) is the citizen of every state 

where its owners or members are citizens, regardless of its state of formation or principal place of 

business; the citizenship of all of its members must be alleged. NewGen, LLC v. Safe Cig, LLC, 

840 F.3d 606, 611–12 (9th Cir. 2016). The burden of establishing subject-matter jurisdiction 

“rests upon the party asserting jurisdiction.” Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 

375, 377 (1994); accord Romero v. Securus Techs., Inc., 216 F. Supp. 3d 1078, 1085 (S.D. Cal. 

2016) (“As the party putting the claims before the court, Plaintiffs bear the burden of establishing 

jurisdiction.” (citing id.)). “If the court determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter

jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). It may do so sua

sponte. Franklin v. State of Or., State Welfare Div., 662 F.2d 1337, 1342 (9th Cir. 1981). 

Here, the FAC alleges that that two of the plaintiffs are LLCs that are formed, and have a 

principal place of business, in Colorado. (Doc. No. 38 ¶¶ 5–6.) The FAC does not allege the 

ownership of the LLC plaintiffs. The FAC alleges the residency, but not the domiciles, of the 

individual defendants. (Id. ¶¶ 7–12.) In addition, the FAC does not appear to allege the complete 

list of owners of the LLC defendants, and some of the owners are individual defendants, whose 

states of domicile are not alleged. (Id. ¶¶ 14–21.) The sixteen causes of action in the FAC appear 

to arise under California contract and tort law. The court also notes that plaintiffs allege that 

defendants violated unnamed federal laws. (See, e.g., id. ¶¶ 30, 53, 169.) However, and despite 

the reference to violation of federal laws, it does not appear that the FAC asserts federal claims.

The cross-complaint brings state-law causes of action against “Cross-Defendants.” (Doc. 

No. 40-1.) Although that term is not defined, it appears that the cross-claim’s defendants are 

Case 1:20-cv-00448-JLT-SKO Document 67 Filed 08/18/21 Page 2 of 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

3

Brandon Bigelow (who is a named defendant in the FAC) and Does 1–50. (Id.) The cross-claim 

alleges cross-claimants and Bigelow are all residents of California; their states of domicile are not 

alleged. (Id. ¶¶ 2–4.) It further alleges that this court has diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1332; it does not invoke the court’s supplemental jurisdiction. (Id. ¶ 1).

Accordingly, 

1. Within fourteen days of the issuance of this order, plaintiffs and cross-claimants shall 

show cause in writing why their actions should not be dismissed for lack of subjectmatter jurisdiction. 

2. Alternatively, within fourteen days, plaintiffs and cross-claimants may either file 

amended pleadings that contain allegations addressing the court’s jurisdiction and the 

issues identified in this order or may voluntarily dismiss their actions.1

3. Plaintiffs and cross-claimants are warned that if they fail to comply with this order, the 

court may dismiss their claims due to lack of jurisdiction.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 18, 2021 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

1

If plaintiff files an amended complaint addressing the issue raised in this order, the court will 

turn its attention to the pending motions (Doc. Nos. 41, 57) without further delay. This will 

maintain the present priority of those motions vis-à-vis other pending motions, which generally 

are being addressed in the order in which they were submitted. The undersigned apologizes for 

the excessive delay in this case. This court’s overwhelming caseload has been well publicized 

and the long-standing lack of judicial resources in this district long-ago reached crisis proportion. 

That situation, which has continued unabated for over eighteen months now, has left the 

undersigned presiding over 1300 civil cases and criminal matters involving 735 defendants at last 

count. Unfortunately, that situation sometimes results in the court not being able to issue orders 

in submitted civil matters within an acceptable period of time. This situation is frustrating to the 

court, which fully realizes how incredibly frustrating it is to the parties and their counsel.

Case 1:20-cv-00448-JLT-SKO Document 67 Filed 08/18/21 Page 3 of 3