The opinion of the court was delivered by: Present: The Honorable Andrew J. Guilford
Lisa Bredahl Not Present Deputy Clerk Court Reporter / Recorder Tape No.
Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs: Attorneys Present for Defendants:
Proceedings: [IN CHAMBERS] ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION
The complaint seeks to allege diversity jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332. However, the exercise of diversity jurisdiction would be improper for the reason(s) checked below:
[X] The complaint sets forth only the residence, rather than the citizenship, of the parties, but diversity or alienage is based upon a party's citizenship. See 28 U.S.C. 1332(a).
[ ] A corporation is joined as a party. The complaint fails to set forth either the corporation's state of incorporation or its principal place of business (both must be set forth). See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c).
[ ] A partnership or unincorporated association is joined as a party. For diversity or alienage jurisdiction to be proper, none of the partners or members, including limited partners, can be a citizen of the same state as any opposing party. The citizenship of all the entity's partners must therefore be alleged. Carden v. Arkoma Assocs., 494 U.S. 185, 192-96, 110 S. Ct. 1015, 1019-21, 108 L. Ed. 2d 157 (1990); Rockwell Int'l Credit Corp. v. United States Aircraft Ins. Group, 823 F.2d 302, 304 (9th Cir. 1987).
[ ] All plaintiffs are not diverse from all defendants. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332; see also
Strawbridge v. Curtiss, 7 U.S. (3 Cranch) 267 (1806).
[ ] The complaint fails to allege the citizenship of one or more parties. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332.
[ ] The complaint fails to allege an amount in controversy in excess of $75,000. See ...