Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-00886/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-00886-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 896
Nature of Suit: Other Statutes - Arbitration
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-(Citizenship)

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KENNETH NEWBY, et al.,

Petitioners,

v.

TREYLED LIFE SETTLEMENTS LLC,

Respondent.

Case No. 1:24-cv-00886-JLT-SAB

ORDER REQUIRING RESPONDENT TO 

FILE A STATEMENT IN ACCORDANCE 

WITH RULE 7.1 OF THE FEDERAL RULES 

OF CIVIL PROCEDURE

THREE-DAY DEADLINE

On July 31, 2024, Petitioners initiated this action by filing a motion to vacate an 

arbitration award that was issued on the same day by an arbitrator in Texas. (ECF No. 1.) 

Therein, Petitioners allege that this Court has diversity jurisdiction because “there is complete 

diversity of citizenship between Petitioners, citizens of California, and Respondent, a citizen of 

Texas and Delaware....” (Id. at ¶ 9.) 

Upon review of the face of Petitioners’ motion to vacate the arbitration award, the Court 

finds diversity of citizenship is not sufficiently alleged. See Badgerow v. Walters, 596 U.S. 1, 9 

(2022) (“If [the face of the vacatur petition] shows that the contending parties are citizens of 

different States (with over $75,000 in dispute), then § 1332(a) gives the court diversity 

jurisdiction”); see also Valdez v. Allstate Ins. Co., 372 F.3d 1115, 1116 (9th Cir. 2004) (noting 

federal courts are “obligated to consider sua sponte whether [they] have subject matter 

jurisdiction.”). Respondent is a limited liability company. “A limited liability company ‘is a 

Case 1:24-cv-00886-JLT-SAB Document 21 Filed 09/24/24 Page 1 of 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

2

citizen of every state of which its owners/members are citizens,’ not the state in which it was 

formed or does business.” NewGen, LLC v. Safe Cig, LLC, 840 F.3d 606, 612 (9th Cir. 2016) 

(quoting Johnson v. Columbia Props. Anchorage, LP, 437 F.3d 894, 899 (9th Cir. 2006)). Thus, 

the citizenship of each owner or member of Treyled Life Settlements LLC is required to 

establish diversity jurisdiction.1 

Under Rule 7.1 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, parties in a diversity case are

required to file a disclosure statement with their first motion that names and identifies every 

individual or entity whose citizenship is attributed to that party. Fed. R. Civ. P. 7.1(a)(2); 

7.1(b)(1). Upon a brief review of the record, it does not appear that Respondent has complied 

with Rule 7.1.

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Respondent file a disclosure statement 

naming and identifying the citizenship of every individual or entity whose citizenship is 

attributed to Treyled Life Settlements LLC no later than three (3) days after entry of this order. 

Failure to comply with this order will result in the issuance of sanctions. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 24, 2024 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

1 The Court has reviewed Respondent’s briefing related to its motion to dismiss, which reiterates that it is a 

Delaware entity with Houston as its principal place of business. (ECF No. 9 at 11; ECF No. 20 at 11.) The 

declaration filed in support of Respondent’s motion does not provide sufficient information that its four managing 

partners who reside in Texas are the sole owners and members of Treyled Life Settlements LLC. The Court 

recognizes that the parties do not appear to dispute subject matter jurisdiction at this time and therefore finds it 

unnecessary to issue an order to show cause regarding subject matter jurisdiction. The Court further notes that the 

Arbitrator detailed in his Final Arbitration Award—which is incorporated in Petitioners’ petition to vacate the 

arbitration award—that “Treyled has four managing members...Each of Treyled’s managing members owns an 

equal share of Treyled.” (ECF No. 1 at 16.) The Court shall require that Respondent file a statement confirming the 

same as of July 31, 2024, if it can do so in good faith.

Case 1:24-cv-00886-JLT-SAB Document 21 Filed 09/24/24 Page 2 of 2