Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-02202/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-02202-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Other Civil Rights

---

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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SHIERKATZ RLLP,

Plaintiff,

v.

SQUARE, INC.,

Defendant.

Case No. 15-cv-02202-JST 

ORDER GRANTING LEAVE TO 

AMEND FIRST AMENDED 

COMPLAINT

Re: ECF No. 49

On September 16, 2015, the Court issued an order to show cause why the Court should not 

dismiss this action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. ECF No. 46. The Court noted that the 

First Amended Complaint, ECF No. 21, does not allege that at least one member of the putative 

class is a citizen of a state other than California or Delaware, of which States Defendant is a 

citizen for the purposes of determining diversity. The Court further noted that in a diversity 

action, such as this case, the plaintiff must state the parties’ citizenships such that the existence of 

diversity can be confirmed. ECF No. 46. at 2 (citing Kanter v. Warner-Lambert Co., 265 F.3d 

853, 857 (9th Cir. 2001) (“Absent unusual circumstances, a party seeking to invoke diversity 

jurisdiction should be able to allege affirmatively the actual citizenship of the relevant parties.”)).

In its response to the Court’s order to show cause, Plaintiff requested that it be granted 

leave to amend the First Amended Complaint so that it can specifically allege that the putative 

class consists of individuals who are citizens of States other than California and Delaware. ECF 

No. 47 at 3. “Dismissal without leave to amend is improper unless it is clear . . . that the 

complaint could not be saved by amendment.” Snell v. Cleveland, Inc., 316 F.3d 822, 828 n.6

(9th Cir. 2002) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1653 (“Defective allegations of jurisdiction may be amended, 

upon terms, in the trial or appellate courts.”)). Accordingly, the Court grants Plaintiff leave to 

amend the First Amended Complaint for the sole purpose of adequately alleging minimal 

Case 3:15-cv-02202-JST Document 53 Filed 09/28/15 Page 1 of 2
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

diversity. Plaintiff shall file its Second Amend Complaint within one week of the date of this 

order.

Assuming that Plaintiff adequately alleges subject matter jurisdiction in its Second 

Amended Complaint, the Court will then turn to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 28, 2015

______________________________________

JON S. TIGAR

United States District Judge

Case 3:15-cv-02202-JST Document 53 Filed 09/28/15 Page 2 of 2