Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_16-cv-01276/USCOURTS-cand-4_16-cv-01276-0/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 

Northern District of California 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GEC US 1 LLC, et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

 v. 

FRONTIER RENEWABLES, LLC,

 Defendant. 

FRONTIER RENEWABLES, LLC,

 Counterclaim Plaintiff, 

 v. 

ACTIVE SOLAR GMBH, et al.,

 Counterclaim Defendants. 

Case No.: 16-cv-1276 YGR

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: DIVERSITY OF 

CITIZENSHIP 

TO THE PARTIES AND THEIR COUNSEL OF RECORD: 

Plaintiffs GEC US 1 LLC, et al. (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) and counterclaim plaintiff Frontier 

Renewables, LLC (“Counterclaim Plaintiff”) are hereby ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE why this case 

should not be dismissed for want of subject matter jurisdiction. 

Plaintiffs filed this action on March 15, 2016 and Counterclaim Plaintiff filed its 

counterclaims, impleading third-party defendants (collectively, “Counterclaim Defendants”), on 

March 25, 2016. (Dkt. Nos. 1, 25.) Plaintiffs’ and Counterclaim Plaintiff’s sole stated basis for 

subject matter jurisdiction was diversity jurisdiction. (Id.) Specifically, they alleged that the amount 

in controversy in this matter exceeded $75,000 and that there was complete diversity of citizenship 

among the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332. (Id.) For purposes of this Order, the Court accepts 

the parties’ allegations with respect to the amount in controversy. This Order to Show Cause issues 

Case 4:16-cv-01276-YGR Document 35 Filed 04/18/16 Page 1 of 3
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

because Plaintiffs and Counterclaim Plaintiff have not made an adequate showing with respect to 

diversity. 

A diversity case may only be brought pursuant to § 1332 “if there is complete diversity 

between all plaintiffs and all defendants.” Lincoln Prop. Co. v. Roche, 546 U.S. 81, 82 (2005). In 

this case, plaintiffs GEC US 1 LLC, AS (Wright) LLC, and Counterclaim Plaintiff are all LLCs, that 

is, limited liability corporations. “[A]n LLC 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). 

Accordingly, to establish diversity, Plaintiffs must specify the citizenship of every state of which their 

owners or members are citizens, and establish that the citizenship of Plaintiffs is completely diverse 

from the citizenship of Counterclaim Plaintiff. Similarly, Counterclaim Plaintiff must specify the 

citizenship of every state of which its owners or members are citizens, and establish that 

Counterclaim Plaintiff’s citizenship is completely diverse from the citizenship of all Counterclaim 

Defendants. 

Here, Plaintiffs and Counterclaim Plaintiff have not carried their burden. Rather, Plaintiffs 

have specified only the state under whose laws GEC US 1 LLC was formed and Counterclaim 

Plaintiff’s principal place of business. (Dkt. No. 1 ¶¶ 3, 6.) Those facts are responsive to the test for 

citizenship for a corporation, see 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1), but for diversity purposes, LLCs are treated 

like partnerships, not corporations, Johnson, 437 F.3d at 899. “[D]espite the functional similarity 

between limited partnerships and corporations, a limited partnership’s citizenship for diversity 

purposes can be determined only by reference to all of the entity’s members.” Kuntz v. Lamar Corp., 

385 F.3d 1177, 1182 (9th Cir. 2004) (citing Carden v. Arkoma Associates, 494 U.S. 185, 195-96 

(1990)). The same holds true for an LLC. Johnson, 437 F.3d at 899. Accordingly, Plaintiffs GEC 

US 1 LLC and AS (Wright) LLC must specify the citizenship of each of their members to 

demonstrate they satisfy the requirement of complete diversity from Counterclaim Plaintiff.1

 

Likewise, Counterclaim Plaintiff must specify the citizenship of each of its members and the 

 1

 By contrast, with respect to plaintiff Activ Solar Holdings (US) Inc., Plaintiffs must specify 

its state of incorporation and its principal place of business. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1). 

Case 4:16-cv-01276-YGR Document 35 Filed 04/18/16 Page 2 of 3
3 

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

citizenship of each of the Counterclaim Defendants to demonstrate it satisfies the requirement of 

complete diversity with respect to its counterclaims. 

No later than Monday April 25, 2016, Plaintiffs and Counterclaim Plaintiff must each file a 

written response to this Order to Show Cause. Their responses shall set forth the bases for their 

assertions of complete diversity of citizenship from all adverse parties, and shall include declarations 

or affidavits supporting any statements of fact, consistent with Civil Local Rule 7-5. 

The Court SETS an Order to Show Cause hearing on Friday, April 29, 2016 at 9:01 a.m. in 

the Federal Courthouse located at 1301 Clay Street in Oakland, California, Courtroom 1. If Plaintiffs 

and Counterclaim Plaintiff have timely filed their responses, the hearing shall be taken off calendar 

and no appearance shall be required. Failure to file a response timely may result in sanctions and 

dismissal for failure to make a jurisdictional showing. 

 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: April 18, 2016 

____________________________________ 

 YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

Case 4:16-cv-01276-YGR Document 35 Filed 04/18/16 Page 3 of 3