Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_12-cv-01117/USCOURTS-cand-5_12-cv-01117-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition For Removal--Other Contract

---

1

Case No.: 5:12-cv-01117-EJD

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

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

SAN JOSE DIVISION

EVAN WEAVER,

Plaintiff,

v.

TAMPA INVESTMENT GROUP, LLC, et 

al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 5:12-cv-01117-EJD 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

In this action against Tampa Investment Group, LLC (“Tampa”), Halcyon Cabot Partners 

Ltd. (“Halcyon”), Felix Investments, LLC (“Felix”), and John Bivona (“Bivona”) (collectively, 

“Defendants”), Plaintiff Evan Weaver (“Plaintiff”) alleges various breach-of-contract and fraudrelated claims under California law. According to Plaintiff, he was an employee of Twitter who 

held shares of Twitter’s common stock. In 2010, a stock broker licensed with Felix and Halcyon 

“cold called” Weaver to solicit the sale of his Twitter stock, and later told Weaver that Tampa was 

a potential buyer. Plaintiff alleges that in reality, Tampa was a “non-funded vehicle” formed by 

Robert Forlizzo at the request of his friend Bivona. In 2011, Plaintiff alleges that he entered into 

an agreement with Tampa and the stock broker. After the agreement was entered into, Bivona 

allegedly informed Plaintiff that Tampa was unable to raise the funds for the deal. Consequently, 

Plaintiff alleges he suffered considerable losses. 

In February 2012, Plaintiff commenced this action in Superior Court, County of Santa 

Clara alleging causes of action only against Tampa. See Compl., Dkt. No. 1 at 8. Thereafter, 

Tampa removed the action to this court claiming federal jurisdiction on the basis of diversity. See

Notice of Removal, Dkt. No. 1 at 1. Plaintiff later sought leave to file a first amended complaint 

Case 5:12-cv-01117-EJD Document 167 Filed 08/05/15 Page 1 of 3
2

Case No.: 5:12-cv-01117-EJD

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

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

to join new defendants and allege additional causes of action, which the court granted in 

December 2012. See Order, Dkt. No. 58. Plaintiff subsequently filed his first amended complaint, 

which includes Halcyon, Felix, and Bivona as new defendants, and asserts federal jurisdiction 

based on diversity. See First Am. Compl., Dkt. No. 59 at ¶¶ 3-5, 12. This complaint remains the 

operative complaint. 

Federal subject matter jurisdiction exists if a civil action is between citizens of different 

states and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1). A state court 

defendant may remove to federal district court a civil action over which the district court had 

original subject matter jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). However, if at any time before final 

judgment the district court determines that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction, it must remand the 

action to state court. 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). The district court has the duty to sua sponte consider 

subject matter jurisdiction. Kwai Fun Wong v. Beebe, 732 F.3d 1030, 1035-36 (9th Cir. 2013). 

Diversity jurisdiction requires complete diversity of citizenship—each of the plaintiffs 

must be a citizen of a different state than each of the defendants. Lincoln Prop. Co. v. Roche, 546 

U.S. 81, 89 (2005). For purposes of diversity jurisdiction, a corporation is a citizen of the state in 

which it is incorporated and the state where its principal place of business is located. Lightfoot v. 

Cendant Mortg. Corp., 769 F.3d 681, 698 (9th Cir. 2014). A partnership and an LLC “is a citizen 

of every state of which its owners/members are citizens.” Johnson v. Columbia Props. Anchorage, 

LP, 437 F.3d 894, 899 (9th Cir. 2006). The party asserting diversity jurisdiction bears the burden 

of proof. Kanter v. Warner-Lambert Co., 265 F.3d 853, 857-58 (9th Cir. 2001). 

Here, the court sua sponte raises the question of whether diversity jurisdiction exists. In 

his first amended complaint, Plaintiff identifies four defendants, but fails to allege the state of

citizenship as to three defendants. First, Plaintiff alleges that Halcyon is headquartered in New 

York, and further alleges that Halcyon Partners Group, LLC owns 75% of Halcyon. See Compl.

at ¶ 3. Since Halcyon is a limited partnership, Plaintiff must allege the state of citizenship of each 

of its owners/members, including the state of citizenship of each of Halcyon Partners Group, 

LLC’s owners/members. Moreover, Plaintiff fails to identify the owner of the remaining 25% 

interest of Halcyon. Second, Plaintiff alleges that Felix is headquartered in New York City, and 

Case 5:12-cv-01117-EJD Document 167 Filed 08/05/15 Page 2 of 3
3

Case No.: 5:12-cv-01117-EJD

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

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

identifies two owners. See id. at ¶ 4. However, he fails to allege the state of citizenship of each of 

Felix’s owners/members. Lastly, Plaintiff identifies Bivona as an individual defendant, but fails to 

allege his state of citizenship. See id. at ¶ 5. 

Given the completion of discovery, the party asserting diversity jurisdiction—whether it is 

Plaintiff or Defendants—is at an optimal place to clearly identify the states of citizenship of each 

party and establish such jurisdiction. However, absent the presentation of this information, the 

court cannot be satisfied that subject matter jurisdiction exists. 

Accordingly, the court hereby issues an order to show cause why this action should not be 

remanded to the Superior Court, County of Santa Clara pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). If 

Plaintiff does not, by August 11, 2015, file a response to this order which demonstrates good 

cause in writing why this case should not be remanded, the court will enter an order to remand 

pursuant to § 1447(c). No hearing will be held on the order to show cause unless otherwise 

ordered by the court. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 5, 2015 

______________________________________

EDWARD J. DAVILA

United States District Judge

Case 5:12-cv-01117-EJD Document 167 Filed 08/05/15 Page 3 of 3