Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-01415/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-01415-7/pdf.json

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

- 1 - 06cv1415

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GMAC,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 06cv1415-LAB (JMA)

ORDER ON ORDER TO SHOW

vs. CAUSE

ELITE SPORTS GROUP, a corporation;

ELITE SPORTS MARKETING, INC., a

corporation; JOSEPH WERWAGE, an

individual; LAURA BROWN-WERWAGE,

an individual; and GREGORY J. LEONARD,

an individual,

Defendants.

On March 22, 2007, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause, requiring Plaintiff to show why

this action should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The alleged basis for jurisdiction was

diversity. The complaint merely alleged Plaintiff was an “entity” organized under the laws of

Delaware, with its principal place of business in Michigan, without explaining whether it was a

corporation or some other kind of entity. By its response filed April 5, 2007, Plaintiff explained that,

at the time of filing, it was a corporation. (Response at 2:6–11.) 

In her Reply to Plaintiff’s Response, Defendant Laura Brown contends Plaintiff has not

specifically alleged its identity, and that on the basis of the Plaintiff’s name and address as given in

the contracts from which this action arises, Plaintiff may not in fact be a corporation with its principal

offices in Michigan, but may be an affiliate of that corporation. (Reply at 2:19–25.). Plaintiff cites

the contracts, which refer to the obligee as “GMAC - CSG” and give a business address in Plano,

Case 3:06-cv-01415-LAB-JMA Document 52 Filed 04/17/07 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 - 06cv1415

Texas. (Id. at 2:9–12.) Defendant Brown requests the Court order Plaintiff to file an amended

complaint identifying its correct, full name, its state of incorporation, and the location of its principal

place of business. (Id. at 3:6–9.) 

Plaintiff has represented to the Court that it was at the time the lawsuit was filed General

Motors Acceptance Corporation, a Delaware Corporation with its principal place of business in

Southfield, Michigan. (Decl. of Julian Bellinghi in Response to Order to Show Cause Re: Jurisdiction,

at 2:2–12.)

On April 13, 2007, Plaintiff also filed a supplemental declaration representing that the Plaintiff

is General Motors Acceptance Corporation and explaining that “GMAC - CSG” refers to a an

operation of GMAC. Defendant Brown thereafter filed a document objecting to Plaintiff’s

supplemental declaration as containing inadmissible hearsay. The Court reminds both parties that the

Order to Show Cause permitted only one filing by each party, and set deadlines for the filings. Both

Plaintiff and Defendant Brown have exceeded the number of filings and the deadlines. The Court will

allow the filed documents to remain in the docket as supplements to Plaintiff’s and Defendant Brown’s

earlier filings. However, the Court does not require any additional filings, and the parties are directed

to file no more documents in response to the Order to Show Cause without leave from the Court.

As discussed above, the Court is satisfied that Plaintiff has met the requirements of pleading

jurisdiction. Of course, this does not estop any party from appropriately questioning the Court’s

jurisdiction at a later stage in the proceedings. Moe v. United States, 326 F.3d 1065, 1070 (9th Cir.

2003) (holding that defendant was not estopped from questioning the court’s jurisdiction, because

jurisdiction is at issue in all stages of a case) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3)). The Court will not

require Plaintiff to file an amended complaint, but will construe the complaint as alleging Plaintiff 

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

Case 3:06-cv-01415-LAB-JMA Document 52 Filed 04/17/07 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 - 06cv1415

was, at the time of filing, a Delaware corporation. Because Defendants are citizens of California and

the amount in controversy requirement is alleged to be greater than $75,000, Plaintiff has alleged facts

sufficient to support jurisdiction. The Order to Show Cause is discharged.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: April 16, 2007

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-01415-LAB-JMA Document 52 Filed 04/17/07 Page 3 of 3