Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-01710/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-01710-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 

---

1

17-CV-1710 W (JMA)

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PC SPECIALISTS, INC., dba 

TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 

GROUP,

Plaintiff,

v.

MADE TECHNOLOGY LLC,

Defendant.

Case No.: 17-CV-1710 W (JMA)

ORDER VACATING ORDER TO 

SHOW CAUSE [DOC. 6]

Plaintiff PC Specialists, Inc., dba Technology Integration Group (“TIG”), filed this 

action on August 23, 2017, invoking the jurisdiction of the Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 

1332. (Compl. [Doc. 1] ¶¶ 3–5.)

(a) The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions where the 

matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and 

costs, and is between . . . (1) citizens of different States[.]

28 U.S.C. § 1332(a).

For the purposes of [§ 1332] . . . (1) a corporation shall be deemed to be a citizen of 

every State . . . by which it has been incorporated and of the State . . . where it has 

its principal place of business[.]

28 U.S.C. § 1332(c). 

//

//

Case 3:17-cv-01710-W-JMA Document 10 Filed 09/05/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2

17-CV-1710 W (JMA)

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

For purposes of § 1332, a limited liability company “is a citizen of every state of 

which its owners/members are citizens.” Johnson v. Columbia Properties Anchorage, 

LP, 437 F.3d 894, 899 (9th Cir. 2006).

In the initial Complaint, TIG alleged that it is “a corporation incorporated under 

the laws of California, with its principal place of business in San Diego, California[,]” 

making it a citizen of California. (Compl. [Doc. 1] ¶ 3.) See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c). 

However, it did not allege facts allowing the Court to infer the citizenship of Defendant 

Made Technology. (See Compl. [Doc. 1] ¶ 4.) The Complaint merely stated that “[u]pon 

information and belief, Defendant Made Technology is a limited liability company 

organized under the laws of New Jersey, and of which no member is a citizen of 

California.” (Id. [Doc. 1] ¶ 4.) 

“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. 2001) (citing and quoting by 

parenthetical Whitmire v. Victus Ltd., 212 F.3d 885, 887 (5th Cir. 2000) (“[I]n a diversity 

action, the plaintiff must state all parties’ citizenships such that the existence of complete 

diversity can be confirmed.”) (in turn quoting Chemical Leaman Tank Lines, Inc. v. 

Aetna Cas. and Sur. Co., 177 F.3d 210, 222 n.13 (3d Cir. 1999))); see generally Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 8 (“A pleading that states a claim for relief must contain . . . (1) a short and plain 

statement of the grounds for the court’s jurisdiction . . . .”).

In the initial Complaint, TIG did not affirmatively allege the actual citizenship of 

all relevant parties, and no unusual circumstances appeared from the face of the 

Complaint. See Kanter, 265 F.3d at 857; Fed. R. Civ. P. 8.

On August 28, 2017, the Court ordered TIG to show cause why this action should 

not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. (OSC [Doc. 6].) TIG responded 

on September 1, asserting that “publicly available information about Made Technology’s 

members is limited, and TIG is unable to allege for certain the current state citizenship of 

Made Technology’s members.” (OSC Response [Doc. 7] 1:15–18.) It also filed a First 

Case 3:17-cv-01710-W-JMA Document 10 Filed 09/05/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3

17-CV-1710 W (JMA)

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

Amended Complaint (“FAC”) alleging that “[u]pon information and belief, Defendant 

Made Technology is a limited liability company organized under the laws of New Jersey, 

all members of which are citizens of New Jersey.” (FAC [Doc. 8] ¶ 4.) 

In light of the foregoing, it would appear that complete diversity of citizenship 

exists between the parties. Thus, the Court’s August 28, 2017 OSC is hereby 

VACATED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 5, 2017

Case 3:17-cv-01710-W-JMA Document 10 Filed 09/05/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3