Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cv-00465/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cv-00465-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract

---

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

This is a business dispute between Plaintiff and Defendant. Plaintiff brings California state 

law causes of action. The Complaint alleges that this Court has diversity jurisdiction. 

“[T]he question whether a court has subject matter jurisdiction can be raised at any time by 

the parties or the court.” Beers v. Southern P. Transp. Co., 703 F.2d 425, 429 (9th Cir. 1983) 

(citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3)). Federal courts may exercise “diversity jurisdiction” when the 

amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 and the parties are “citizens of different States.” 28 

U.S.C. § 1332(a); Rainero v. Archon Corp., 844 F.3d 832, 839 (9th Cir. 2016). Diversity 

jurisdiction requires “complete diversity,” meaning that the citizenship of each plaintiff is different 

from the citizenship of each defendant. Weeping Hollow Ave. Trust v. Spencer, 831 F.3d 1110, 

1113 (9th Cir. 2016). The citizenship of an entity depends upon the form of the entity. Johnson v. 

Columbia Props. Anchorage, LP, 437 F.3d 894, 899 (9th Cir. 2006). Like a partnership, an LLC 

“is a citizen of every state of which its owners/members are citizens.” 3123 SMB, LLC v. Horn, 

GEO GUIDANCE DRILLING 

SERVICES, INC., a California 

corporation, 

Plaintiff

v.

RENAISSANCE RESOURCES, LLC, a 

Wyoming limited liability company,

Defendants

CASE NO. 1:20-CV-0465 AWI JLT 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Case 1:20-cv-00465-CDB Document 6 Filed 04/02/20 Page 1 of 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

2

880 F.3d 461, 465 (9th Cir. 2018); Johnson, 437 F.3d at 899 (9th Cir. 2006); see Zambelli 

Fireworks Mfg. Co. v. Wood, 592 F.3d 412, 420 (3d Cir. 2010). 

Here, there Complaint clearly indicates that over $75,000 is in controversy. The 

Complaint identifies more than $1 million in damages relating to a well drilling project. However, 

the Complaint alleges that Defendant is “a limited liability company formed under the laws of the 

State of Wyoming, with a principal place of business [in Wyoming].” Complaint ¶ 5.

The problem is that an LLC’s citizenship is not determined by examining the State of 

formation or the principal place of business. Johnson, 437 F.3d at 899. Since 2006, it has been 

clear in the Ninth Circuit that the citizenship of an LLC is not determined in the same or similar 

way as a corporation. See id. Rather, an LLC’s citizenship is the same as its members/owners. 

Id.; see also Zambelli Fireworks, 592 F.3d at 420; 3123 SMB, 880 F.3d at 465. The Complaint 

contains no allegations regarding the Defendant LLC’s members. Plaintiff’s allegations regarding 

principal place of business and state of formation do not provide any relevant information 

regarding the Defendant’s citizenship.1 

“The party seeking to invoke the district court’s diversity jurisdiction always bears the 

burden of both pleading and proving diversity jurisdiction.” Rainero, 844 F.3d at 839. As 

demonstrated above, Plaintiff has not met its burden of pleading diversity jurisdiction. Therefore, 

it is appropriate for Plaintiff to show cause in writing why this case should not be dismissed for 

lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The response must demonstrate that Plaintiff has the ability to 

properly plead and invoke diversity jurisdiction.

ORDER

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Within twenty-one (21) days of service of this order, Plaintiff is to show cause in writing 

why this case should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction; 

2. Once Plaintiff responds to this order, the Court will issue an additional order regarding the 

progression of this case; and

 

1 The Complaint adequately alleges that Plaintiff is a citizen of California. See Complaint ¶ 3.

Case 1:20-cv-00465-CDB Document 6 Filed 04/02/20 Page 2 of 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

3

3. Failure of the Plaintiff to timely show cause will result in the dismissal of this case for lack 

of subject matter jurisdiction without further notice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 2, 2020 

 SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:20-cv-00465-CDB Document 6 Filed 04/02/20 Page 3 of 3