UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
February 1, 2012
ABG TAPOUT LLC
VAM DISTRIBUTION LLC
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Present: The Honorable Gary Allen Feess
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Renee Fisher None N/A Deputy Clerk Court Reporter / Recorder Tape No.
Attorneys Present for Plaintiff: Attorneys Present for Defendant: None None
Proceedings: (In Chambers)
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION
Plaintiff ABG Tapout, LLC ("ABG") filed this breach of contract action against defendant VAM Distribution, LLC ("VAM") in connection with VAM's alleged failure to pay royalties for the use on various products of ABG's "TapouT" name and logo. (Docket No. 1 [Compl.] ¶¶ 5--10.) However, the Court cannot presently determine whether it has subject matter jurisdiction over this action.
Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of , 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). The burden of establishing jurisdiction rests on the party asserting jurisdiction. Id. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, the Court has jurisdiction over suits between citizens of different states if the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). "Diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 requires complete diversity, i.e. every plaintiff must be diverse from every defendant." Osborn v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 341 F. Supp. 2d 1123, 1126 (E.D. Cal. 2004).
"[A]n LLC is a citizen of every state of which its owners/members are citizens." Johnson v. Columbia Props. Anchorage, LP, 437 F.3d 894, 899 (9th Cir. 2006). In Plaintiff's Complaint, ABG, a limited liability company, asserts that it is organized and exists under the laws of the State of Delaware. ABG further asserts that VAM, also a limited liability company, is organized and exists under the laws of the state of California with its principal place of business also in California. Thus, the Complaint does not property allege citizenship for either party. Plaintiff must allege the citizenship of every owner or member of the LLCs. Plaintiff is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE no later than the close of business on Wednesday, February 8, 2012, as to why the case should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Failure to respond by this deadline will be deemed consent to dismissal of the action.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.