Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-02670/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-02670-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Commercial Credit Group Inc.
Plaintiff
Hundal Truck Line-HTL, LLC
Defendant

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

COMMERCIAL CREDIT GROUP INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

HUNDAL TRUCK LINE-HTL, LLC,

Defendant.

No. 2:15-cv-02670-GEB-EFB

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION FOR LACK 

OF SUBJECT MATTER JURSIDICTION

Plaintiff moves for “an Ex Parte Writ of Possession as

against Defendant Hundal Truck Line-HTL, LLC (‘HTL’).” (Mem. of 

P. & A. ISO Pl.’s Appl. (“Appl.”) 2:2–3, ECF No. 5-2.) It also 

moves in the alternative for a writ of possession after a 

hearing, and a temporary restraining order pending the hearing. 

(Appl. 2:3–4.) Plaintiff, however, has not shown that the federal 

court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action. 

“Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. 

They possess only that power authorized by Constitution and 

statute . . . . It is to be presumed that a cause lies outside 

this limited jurisdiction, and the burden of establishing the 

contrary rests upon the party asserting jurisdiction.” Kokkonen 

v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994) 

(citations omitted). 

Case 2:15-cv-02670-GEB-EFB Document 6 Filed 01/06/16 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

“[A] district court ha[s] a duty to establish subject 

matter jurisdiction . . . sua sponte, whether the parties raised 

the issue or not.” United Investors Life Ins. Co. v. Waddell & 

Reed Inc., 360 F.3d 960, 966–67 (9th Cir. 2004); see also Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 12(h)(3) (“If the court determines at any time that it 

lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the 

action.”). 

Plaintiff alleges in its Complaint that “[j]urisdiction 

exists in Federal Court by virtue of diversity of citizenship[ 

under] 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1).” (Compl. ¶ 3, ECF No. 2.) It 

further alleges that HTL “was, and still is, a limited liability 

company.” (Compl. ¶ 2.) These allegations are insufficient to 

satisfy Plaintiff’s burden of alleging diversity of citizenship 

required for diversity subject matter jurisdiction. The Ninth 

Circuit held in Johnson v. Columbia Properties Anchorage, LP, 437 

F.3d 894, 899 (9th Cir. 2006), “an LLC is a citizen of every 

state of which its owners/members are citizens.” Plaintiff, 

however, fails to allege the citizenship of HTL’s owners/members. 

Since Plaintiff has not established that the federal 

court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action, this

action is dismissed.

Dated: January 5, 2016

Case 2:15-cv-02670-GEB-EFB Document 6 Filed 01/06/16 Page 2 of 2