Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-02929/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-02929-0/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

ACCENTURE LLP,

Plaintiff,

 v.

DAVID NIU,

Defendant.

 /

No. C-05-2929 MMC

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION FOR

LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER

JURISDICTION, WITH LEAVE TO

AMEND

Before the Court is the complaint filed July 19, 2005 by plaintiff Accenture LLP

(“Accenture”) against defendant David Niu (“Niu”). Accenture alleges that this Court has 

diversity jurisdiction over the instant action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332 because

Accenture is “an Illinois general partnership registered as a limited liability partnership,” with

offices in California, and Niu is a resident of the state of Washington. (See Compl. ¶¶ 1, 2,

5.) 

Accenture fails to adequately allege the citizenship of the parties. In particular, the

Court notes that the Supreme Court has held that a partnership is a citizen of all states in

which one or more of its general or limited partners is a citizen. See Carden v. Arkoma

Associates, 494 U.S. 185, 195-96 (1990). As Accenture has not alleged the citizenship of

each of its partners, it has not adequately alleged that this Court has subject matter

Case 3:05-cv-02929-MMC Document 3 Filed 07/22/05 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

jurisdiction over the instant action.

Accordingly, the instant action is hereby DISMISSED for failure to adequately allege

subject matter jurisdiction, with leave to file an amended complaint no later than Friday

August 12, 2005. If Accenture fails to file a timely amended complaint, the Court will

dismiss the action, without prejudice to Accenture’s pursuing the claims alleged herein in

state court.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 22, 2005 

/s/ Maxine M. Chesney 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:05-cv-02929-MMC Document 3 Filed 07/22/05 Page 2 of 2