UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
April 20, 2012
PCO INNOVATION CORP.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Present: The Honorable James V. Selna
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Karla J. Tunis
Not Present Deputy Clerk Court Reporter
Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs: Attorneys Present for Defendants: Not Present Not Present
Proceedings: (In Chambers) Order to Show Cause re Jurisdiction
The Court has made a preliminary review of the jurisdictional allegations in the:
X Notice of Removal ("Notice") filed April 6, 2012 by Brian Cox("Cox").
The initial pleading invokes jurisdiction in this Court on the basis of diversity of citizenship, 28 U.S.C. § 1332. (Notice, ¶ 9.) Jurisdiction on this basis requires complete diversity.
The following parties to the action are alleged to be a limited liability companies ("LLCs"):
PCO Innovation Corp.
For purposes of diversity jurisdiction, an LLC takes on the citizenship of each of its members. Johnson v. Columbia Properties Anchorage , LP, 437 F.3d 894, 899 (9th Cir. 2006); Cosgrove v. Bartolotta, 150 F.3d 729, 731 (7th Cir. 1998); Keith v. Black Diamond Advisors, Inc., 48 F. Supp. 2d 326, 329-30 (S.D. N.Y. 1999). In order to determine diversity, the Court must consider the citizenship of each LLC member, and if a member is an LLC, the citizenship of its members. Presently, the Court cannot tell if jurisdiction has been properly invoked.
Cox is ordered to file an amended initial pleading within 15 days identifying each member of each alleged LLC and the member's citizenship and principal place of business as the date of the filing of the initial pleading. If any member is itself an LLC, the same information shall be provided for each subtier member, and if need be, for each successive subtier.
A failure to respond may result in remand of the case to the Superior Court of the State of California for lack of jurisdiction.
Initials of Preparer kjt
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.