Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-01497/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-01497-0/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

08cv1497

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CUSTOM WINDOW COMPANY,

Plaintiff,

v.

5th AVENUE PARTNERS, LLC, et al.,

Defendants; _________________________________

AND RELATED COUNTERCLAIM.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No. 08cv1497-L(JMA)

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION FOR

LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER

JURISDICTION

Plaintiff Custom Window Company filed a complaint for breach of contract and other

state law claims based on diversity of citizenship pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Defendant 5th

Avenue Partners, LLC (“5th Avenue”) filed a Counterclaim against Plaintiff and several third

parties for breach of contract, fraud and related state law claims based on supplemental

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367. Because the complaint fails to allege the facts necessary to

determine whether the parties are diverse, the action is dismissed for lack of subject matter

jurisdiction. 

The federal court is one of limited jurisdiction. See Gould v. Mutual Life Ins. Co. of N.Y.,

790 F.2d 769, 774 (9th Cir. 1986). It possesses only that power authorized by the Constitution

or a statute. See Bender v. Williamsport Area Sch. Dist., 475 U.S. 534, 541 (1986). It is

constitutionally required to raise issues related to federal subject matter jurisdiction, and may do

Case 3:08-cv-01497-L-JMA Document 10 Filed 11/05/08 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 08cv1497

so sua sponte. Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env't, 523 U.S. 83, 93-94 (1998); see Indus.

Tectonics, Inc. v. Aero Alloy, 912 F.2d 1090, 1092 (9th Cir. 1990). A federal court must satisfy

itself of its jurisdiction over the subject matter before proceeding to the merits of the case. 

Ruhrgas AG v. Marathon Oil Co., 526 U.S. 574, 577, 583 (1999). 

The plaintiff bears the burden of demonstrating that jurisdiction is properly before the

court. See Thornhill Publ’g Co. v. General Tel. & Elec. Corp., 594 F.2d 730, 733 (9th Cir.

1979). “Subject matter jurisdiction is determined on the basis of the facts that existed at the time

the action was filed.” See Stock West Corp. v. Taylor, 964 F.2d 912, 917 (9th Cir. 1992). The

complaint must affirmatively allege the state of citizenship of each party. Bautista v. Pan Am.

World Airlines, Inc., 828 F.2d 546, 551 (9th Cir. 1987); see also Kanter v. Warner-Lambert, Co.,

265 F.3d 853 (9th Cir. 2001). 

Plaintiff alleges it is a Colorado corporation, Defendant 5th Avenue is a California limited

liability company, and Defendant AWI, Inc. (“AWI”) is a Washington corporation. (Compl. at

1-2.) 

For diversity purposes, “a corporation shall be deemed to be a citizen of any State by

which it has been incorporated and of the State where it has its principal place of business . . ..” 

28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1). Although Plaintiff alleges that AWI as well as Plaintiff itself are

corporations, Plaintiff does not allege the State of incorporation and the principal place of

business for each of them. Accordingly, Plaintiff fails to adequately allege citizenship of AWI

as well as its own citizenship.

Furthermore, the citizenship of a limited liability company or a limited liability

partnership is determined by examining the citizenship of each of its members or partners. 

Carden v. Arkoma Assoc., 494 U.S. 185, 195-96 (1990). Plaintiff does not allege the citizenship

of each member of 5th Avenue, which is necessary to establish diversity in this case.

Because the complaint does not allege the facts necessary to establish diversity as

required by 28 U.S.C. § 1332, this action is DISMISSED for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

/ / / / /

/ / / / /

Case 3:08-cv-01497-L-JMA Document 10 Filed 11/05/08 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 08cv1497

If Plaintiff can correct this pleading defect, it may file an amended complaint. See 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1653. Any such amended complaint shall be filed no later than November 14, 2008.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: November 5, 2008

M. James Lorenz

United States District Court Judge

COPY TO: 

HON. JAN M. ADLER

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

ALL PARTIES/COUNSEL

Case 3:08-cv-01497-L-JMA Document 10 Filed 11/05/08 Page 3 of 3