Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-03929/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-03929-0/pdf.json

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

---

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

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CEDAR BRIDGE, INC., et al.,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

NIEHAUS RYAN WONG, INC., et al.,

Defendants /

No. C-06-3929 MMC

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY

ACTION SHOULD NOT BE REMANDED

FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER

JURISDICTION 

The above-titled action was removed to federal court on June 23, 2006 on the basis

of diversity jurisdiction. Diversity jurisdiction exists where the lawsuit is between citizens of

different states, and the amount in controversy is greater than $75,000. See 28 U.S.C.

§ 1332(a). Although defendants correctly note that plaintiffs allege more than $75,000 in

damages, (see Compl. at 14), defendants have not adequately alleged diversity of the

parties.

Plaintiff Olive Grove Partners II, Ltd. (“Olive Grove”) alleges it is a limited

partnership. (See Compl. ¶ 2 .) A partnership is a citizen of all states in which one or more

of its partners is a citizen. See Carden v. Arkoma, 494 U.S. 185, 195-96 (1990). Thus,

defendants cannot establish diversity jurisdiction without first alleging the citizenship of

each of the partners of Olive Grove. Defendants’ allegation that Olive Grove is “a Texas

limited partnership with its principal place of business in Austin, Texas,” (see Notice of

Case 3:06-cv-03929-MMC Document 6 Filed 06/27/06 Page 1 of 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

2

Removal ¶ 3), is insufficient to allege diversity of the parties.

Accordingly, defendants are hereby ordered to show cause in writing, no later than

July 14, 2006, why the instant action should not be remanded for lack of subject matter

jurisdiction. If plaintiffs so choose, they may file a response no later than July 28, 2006, at

which time the matter will be taken under submission unless the Court, upon review of the

filings, determines that a hearing is necessary.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 27, 2006 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-03929-MMC Document 6 Filed 06/27/06 Page 2 of 2