Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-04684/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-04684-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Clarendon National Insurance Company
Defendant
Ocadian Care Centers, LLC
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

OCADIAN CARE CENTERS, LLC,

Plaintiff,

 v.

CLARENDON NATIONAL INSURANCE

COMPANY,

Defendant /

No. C-06-4684 MMC

ORDER DIRECTING DEFENDANT TO

SHOW CAUSE WHY ACTION SHOULD

NOT BE REMANDED

Before the Court is the Notice of Removal, filed August 1, 2006, by defendant

Clarendon National Insurance Company, by which defendant seeks to remove a complaint

filed in state court by plaintiff Ocadian Care Centers, LLC.

In the Notice of Removal, defendant alleges the instant complaint is removable on

the basis of diversity jurisdiction. In support of this assertion, defendant alleges the amount

in controversy exceeds $75,000, (see Notice of Removal ¶ 5), and that defendant is

incorporated in New Jersey, with a principal place of business in New York, (see id. ¶ 3). 

With respect to the citizenship of plaintiff, defendant alleges that plaintiff is a “California

limited liability company [and] is an entity qualified to do business in the State of California.” 

(See id. ¶ 2.) 

A limited liability corporation is a “citizen of every state in which its owners/members

are citizens.” See Johnson v. Columbia Properties Anchorage, LP, 437 F. 3d 894, 899 (9th

Case 3:06-cv-04684-MMC Document 10 Filed 08/16/06 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

Cir. 2006). Here, defendant fails to allege that every owner and every member of plaintiff is

a resident of a state other than New Jersey and New York. Consequently, defendants’

allegations with respect to the citizenship of plaintiff are insufficient to allege the existence

of diversity jurisdiction.

Accordingly, defendant is hereby ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE, in writing and no

later than August 25, 2006, why the instant action should not be remanded for lack of

subject matter jurisdiction.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 16, 2006 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-04684-MMC Document 10 Filed 08/16/06 Page 2 of 2