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 

Northern District of California 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

DAVID BERLANGA, ET AL., 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

EQUILON ENTERPRISES LLC, et al., 

Defendants. 

Case No. 17-cv-00282-MMC 

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT 

FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER 

JURISDICTION; AFFORDING 

PLAINTIFFS LEAVE TO AMEND; 

CONTINUING CASE MANAGEMENT 

CONFERENCE 

Before the Court is the "Class Action Complaint for Damages, Restitution, and 

Injunctive Relief," filed January 19, 2017,1 by plaintiffs David Berlanga, Brandon 

Ehresman, Charles Gaeth, Michael Gonzalez, John Langlitz and Christopher Palacio on 

their own behalf and on behalf of a putative class. Having read and considered the 

complaint, the Court, for the reasons stated below, will dismiss the action for lack of 

subject matter jurisdiction and will afford plaintiffs the opportunity to amend to allege, if 

they can do so, sufficient facts to support jurisdiction. 

The complaint consists of four causes of action, each arising under state law and 

each based on plaintiffs' allegations that defendants, who are alleged to be plaintiffs' 

employers, have not provided plaintiffs with "off-duty breaks." (See Compl. ¶¶ 33-38, 43-

44, 47, 52, 61.) In their jurisdictional statement, plaintiffs allege that "[t]his Court has 

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 because [p]laintiffs are California residents, 

 1

The above-titled action was reassigned to the undersigned on April 10, 2017. 
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 

United States District Court 

Northern District of California 

[d]efendants are incorporated in Delaware and headquartered in Houston, Texas, and the 

amount in controversy exceeds $75,000." (See Compl. ¶ 14.) 

A district court has diversity jurisdiction where "the matter in controversy exceeds 

the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs" and the matter is "between 

. . . citizens of different States." See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). The allegations in the instant 

complaint, however, are insufficient as a matter of law to support a finding that the matter 

is between citizens of different states. 

 First, the complaint includes no factual allegations to support a finding that any of 

the six plaintiffs, each of whom is an individual, is a citizen of any state. As the Ninth 

Circuit has explained: 

To be a citizen of a state, a natural person must first be a citizen of the 

United States. The natural person's state citizenship is then determined by 

[that person's] state of domicile, not [his/her] state of residence. A person's 

domicile is [his/her] permanent home, where [he/she] resides with the 

intention to remain or to which [he/she] intends to return. A person residing 

in a given state is not necessarily domiciled there, and thus is not 

necessarily a citizen of that state. 

See Kanter v. Warner-Lambert Co., 265 F.3d 853, 857 (9th Cir. 2001). Although the 

complaint alleges each plaintiff is a "resident" of California (see Compl. ¶¶ 1-6),2 such 

allegation fails to support the "assertion of diversity citizenship." See Kanter v. WarnerLambert Co., 265 F.3d 853, 857-58 (9th Cir. 2001) (holding notice of removal failed to 

adequately allege parties were diverse, where notice alleged plaintiffs were "residents" of 

California, and, consequently, failed to "[make] any allegation regarding [p]laintiffs' state 

citizenship"). 

Second, the complaint includes no factual allegations from which the Court could 

determine the state(s) of which any of the three defendants, each of which is an artificial 

entity, is a citizen. The complaint alleges that defendant Equilon Enterprises is an "LLC," 

i.e., a limited liability company (see Compl. ¶ 9), and that defendants CRI U.S. and Shell 

 2

The complaint includes, inter alia, an "Introduction" and a section titled "The 

Parties," both of which contain paragraphs numbered 1-4. (See Compl. at 1:2-24, 2:26 - 

3:5.) The above citation is to the latter. 
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 

United States District Court 

Northern District of California 

Pipeline Company are each "LPs," i.e., limited partnerships (see Compl. ¶¶ 10-11). An 

LLC is a citizen of every state of which its "owners/members" are citizens, see Johnson v. 

Columbia Properties Anchorage, LP, 437 F.3d 894, 899 (9th Cir. 2006), and an LP is a 

citizen of every state of which "all of the members," i.e., its "general partners" and "limited 

partners," are citizens, see Carden v. Arkoma Associates, 494 U.S. 185, 192, 195 (1990) 

(internal quotation and citation omitted). Consequently, a district court cannot determine 

the citizenship of an LLC or an LP in the absence of a showing as to the identity and 

citizenship of each of its members. Further, "because a member of [an artificial entity] 

may itself have multiple members – and thus may itself have multiple citizenships – the 

federal court needs to know the citizenship of each 'sub-member' as well." See V & M 

Star, LP v. Centimark Corp., 596 F.3d 354, 356 (6th Cir. 2010) (internal quotation and 

citation omitted). Here, the complaint does not identify the members of the three 

defendants, let alone each member's state(s) of citizenship, and, as to any member that 

is not an individual or corporation, each sub-member's state(s) of citizenship. 

In sum, the complaint includes no facts to support a finding as to the citizenship of 

any plaintiff or any defendant, let alone facts to support a finding of "complete diversity of 

citizenship." See Carden, 494 U.S. at 187 (internal quotation and citation omitted). 

Accordingly, the complaint is subject to dismissal for lack of subject matter 

jurisdiction, see Fed. R. Civ. P 12(h)(3) (providing "[i]f the court determines at any time 

that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, it must dismiss the action"), and plaintiffs may file 

an amended complaint if they can allege facts that would support a finding that the 

parties are diverse, see 28 U.S.C. § 1653 (providing "[d]efective allegations of jurisdiction 

may be amended"). 

CONCLUSION 

For the reasons stated above, the complaint is hereby DISMISSED for lack of 

subject matter jurisdiction. If plaintiffs wish to file an amended complaint for purposes of 

curing the above-referenced jurisdictional deficiencies, plaintiffs shall file such pleading 

no later than May 19, 2017. 
4 

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 

Northern District of California 

In light of the above, the Case Management Conference is hereby CONTINUED 

from May 5, 2017, to June 30, 2017, at 10:30 a.m. A Joint Case Management Statement 

shall be filed no later than June 23, 2017. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: April 26, 2017 

 MAXINE M. CHESNEY 

 United States District Judge