Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_19-cv-04391/USCOURTS-cand-4_19-cv-04391-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 160
Nature of Suit: Stockholder's Suits
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Stockholders Suits

---

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

HSM HOLDINGS, LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

MANTU I.M. MOBILE LTD., et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 19-cv-04391-JST 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: 

SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION; 

ORDER VACATING MOTION 

HEARING

Re: ECF No. 12

Defendant Joseph Cayre removed this case from state court on the basis of diversity 

jurisdiction. ECF No. 1 at 3. The notice of removal states that “plaintiff HSM was and is a 

Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in California.” Id. However, in the 

complaint filed in state court, HSM alleges that it is “a Delaware limited liability company, with 

its principal place of business in Alameda County, California.” ECF No. 1-1 at 4 (emphasis 

added). This distinction is significant for purposes of determining diversity jurisdiction because, 

like a partnership, a limited liability company (“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).

Although the complaint does not allege the identity of the members of the LLC, HSM has

filed a corporate disclosure statement that “HSM Holdings, LLC is owned 100% by Sotech LLC 

(a California LLC), as the sole member and managing member.” ECF No. 9 at 2. But the record 

is silent on the membership of Sotech LLC and the citizenship of Sotech’s members, which the 

Court must also consider when analyzing diversity jurisdiction. See Johnson, 437 F.3d at 899 

(considering citizenship of the members of two LLCs, which were members of a partnership, to 

determine citizenship of the partnership). 

Case 4:19-cv-04391-JST Document 26 Filed 11/25/19 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

As the removing defendant, Cayre “has the burden of establishing that removal is proper.” 

Gaus v. Miles, 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992) (per curiam). Thus far, he has failed to meet that 

burden because HSM’s citizenship is unknown. 

Accordingly, Cayre is ordered to show cause in writing, within 14 days of the date of this 

order, as to why this case should not be remanded for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. If HSM 

wishes to respond, it may file a responsive brief within seven days thereafter.

The December 4, 2019 hearing on Defendants’ motion to dismiss, ECF No. 12, is vacated.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 25, 2019

______________________________________

JON S. TIGAR

United States District Judge

Case 4:19-cv-04391-JST Document 26 Filed 11/25/19 Page 2 of 2