Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01811/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01811-0/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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

On November 8, 2013, Plaintiff Hobar Enterprises, LLC filed a complaint in this Court for 

breach of contract, negligence, and breach of warranty. See Doc. No. 1. These causes of action 

all relate to the allegedly improper repair of an aircraft’s landing system. Plaintiff alleges that this 

Court has diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. See id. at ¶ 1.1. Plaintiff alleges that the 

amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.00. See id. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Yada Yada 

Yada, Inc. is a California corporation with its principal place of business in California. See id. at ¶ 

2.2. Plaintiff then alleges that it is a Washington limited liability corporation with its principle 

place of business in Washington. See id. at ¶ 2.1. 

The plaintiff has the burden to establish that subject matter jurisdiction is proper. Vacek v. 

United States Postal Serv., 447 F.3d 1248, 1250 (9th Cir. 2006). “A federal court is presumed to 

lack jurisdiction in a particular case unless the contrary affirmatively appears.” A-Z Int=l v. 

Phillips, 323 F.3d 1141, 1145 (9th Cir. 2003); see Vacek, 447 F.3d at 1250. Courts may raise the 

issue of subject matter jurisdiction sua sponte and at any time during the pendency of an action. 

Snell v. Cleveland, Inc., 316 F.3d 822, 826 (9th Cir. 2002). 

For purposes of diversity jurisdiction, there must be “complete diversity” between the 

parties, which means that each defendant must be a citizen of a different state from each plaintiff. 

HOBAR ENTERPRISES, LLC,

Plaintiff

v.

YADA YADA YADA, INC. d.b.a APR 

Aviation, Inc.,

Defendant

CASE NO. 1:13-CV-1811 AWI SKO 

ORDER DISMISSING CASE FOR LACK 

OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION

Case 1:13-cv-01811-SKO Document 6 Filed 11/12/13 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

In re Digimarc Corp. Derivative Litigation, 549 F.3d 1223, 1234 (9th Cir. 2008). “Absent unusual 

circumstances, a party seeking to invoke diversity jurisdiction should be able to allege 

affirmatively the actual citizenship of the relevant parties.” Kanter v. Warner-Lambert Co., 265 

F.3d 853, 857 (9th Cir. 2002). A corporation is deemed a citizen of its state of incorporation and 

its principal place of business. Harris v. Rand, 682 F.3d 846, 850 (9th Cir. 2012). A limited 

liability corporation, however, is a citizen of all of the states of which its owners/members are 

citizens. Lindley Contours, LLC v. AABB Fitness Holdings, Inc., 414 Fed. Appx. 62, 64 (9th Cir. 

2011); Johnson v. Columbia Props. Anchorage, LP, 437 F.3d 894, 899 (9th Cir. 2006).

Here, Plaintiff’s complaint fails to adequately allege diversity jurisdiction. Although 

Plaintiff identifies itself as a Washington entity with its principal place of business in Washington, 

Plaintiff does not allege the citizenship of its owners/members. Without allegations that identify

the citizenship of each of Plaintiff’s owners/members, Plaintiff’s citizenship is wholly unknown. 

Because Plaintiff has failed to properly invoke this Court’s subject matter jurisdiction, the Court 

will dismiss the Complaint, but will give Plaintiff leave to amend. Advanced Energy Solutions, 

LLC v. Sea-Pacific, Inc., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 63894, *3 (E.D. Cal. May 2, 2013)

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Complaint is DISMISSED due to a lack of subject matter jurisdiction;

2. Plaintiff is granted fourteen (14) days in which to file a complaint that properly invokes 

diversity jurisdiction; and

3. If Plaintiff fails to file a timely amended complaint, leave to amend will be withdrawn and 

this case will be closed without further notice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 12, 2013 

 SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-01811-SKO Document 6 Filed 11/12/13 Page 2 of 2