Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_08-cv-00789/USCOURTS-cand-5_08-cv-00789-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 365
Nature of Suit: Personal Injury - Product Liability
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question: Personal Injury

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

 Defendant also moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, improper venue,

forum non conveniens, or, alternatively, sought to transfer the matter to Nevada. 

* E-filed 4/11/08 *

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

AIMEE KLINE,

Plaintiff,

v.

WILD GAME NG, LLC d/b/a THE SIENA

HOTEL CASINO & SPA and DOES,

Defendants.

 /

Case No. CV 08-00789 HRL

ORDER (1) GRANTING DEFENDANT'S

MOTION TO DISMISS AND (2)

VACATING HEARING DATE

Re: Docket No. 4

Plaintiff, a California citizen, alleges that she was injured while dining at a restaurant inside

Defendant's casino. The asserted basis for federal jurisdiction is diversity of citizenship. The

complaint alleges Defendant is a Nevada citizen because (1) it is a limited liability company (LLC)

organized under the laws of Nevada and because (2) it has its principal place of business in Nevada. 

Complaint, ¶ 2. Defendant moves to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and for other

various grounds.1

Case 5:08-cv-00789-HRL Document 13 Filed 04/11/08 Page 1 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 73 and 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), both parties have consented

that all proceedings in this matter may be heard and finally adjudicated by the undersigned. 

2

Having considered the papers of the moving party and Plaintiff’s response, this matter is

deemed appropriate for determination without oral argument. See Civil Local Rule 7-1(b). 

Accordingly, the April 15, 2008 hearing is vacated and the court now orders as follows:2

I. SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION

LEGAL STANDARD

“Whenever it appears by suggestion of the parties or otherwise that the court lacks

jurisdiction of the subject matter, the court shall dismiss the action.” FED. R. CIV. P. 12(h)(3). A

lack of jurisdiction is presumed unless the party asserting jurisdiction establishes that it exists. See

Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of America, 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994); see also Stock West, Inc.

v. Confederated Tribes, 873 F.2d 1221, 1225 (9th Cir. 1989). In diversity actions, the burden is on

the plaintiff to plead and prove the citizenship of the parties. Bautista v. Pan American World

Airlines, Inc., 828 F.2d 546, 552 (9th Cir. 1987). 

“A jurisdictional challenge under Rule 12(b)(1) may be made either on the face of the

pleadings or by presenting extrinsic evidence.” Warren v. Fox Family Worldwide, Inc., 328 F.3d

1136, 1139 (9th Cir. 2003) (citing White v. Lee, 227 F.3d 1214, 1242 (9th Cir. 2000)). “In a facial

attack, the challenger asserts that the allegations contained in a complaint are insufficient on their

face to invoke federal jurisdiction.” Safe Air for Everyone v. Meyer, 373 F.3d 1035, 1039 (9th Cir.

2004). 

DISCUSSION

Defendant argues that for purposes of diversity jurisdiction, the limited liability company is

a citizen of every state of which its owners or members are citizens. Johnson v. Columbia

Properties Anchorage, LP, 437 F.3d 894, 899 (9th Cir. 2006). Here, the complaint does not

identify any members of the Defendant LLC, nor does it allege their respective places of

citizenship. Therefore, Defendant says the complaint should be dismissed as facially invalid

Case 5:08-cv-00789-HRL Document 13 Filed 04/11/08 Page 2 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

because it fails to plead facts necessary to establish subject matter jurisdiction. FED. R. CIV. P.

12(b)(1). 

Plaintiff submitted a statement of non-opposition, conceding the case should be dismissed

for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to the Johnson authority. Accordingly, the motion

to dismiss is GRANTED for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

II. REMAINDER OF MOTION

The balance of Defendant's motion is DENIED AS MOOT.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 4/11/08 

HOWARD R. LLOYD

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 5:08-cv-00789-HRL Document 13 Filed 04/11/08 Page 3 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

4

5:07-cv-3457 Notice has been electronically mailed to: 

Christopher Ashworth ca@svlg.com, amt@svlg.com, dls@svlg.com, keb@svlg.com 

Melissa L. Exline mexline@perryspann.com 

* Counsel are responsible for providing copies of this order to co-counsel.

Dated: 4/11/08 

 /s/ KRO 

 Chambers of Magistrate Judge Lloyd

Case 5:08-cv-00789-HRL Document 13 Filed 04/11/08 Page 4 of 4