Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Title: Bisnar Chase Personal Injury Attorneys, Llp v. the Law Office of Ramon Garcia

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


April 29, 2013

TITLE: BISNAR CHASE PERSONAL INJURY ATTORNEYS, LLP
v.
THE LAW OFFICE OF RAMON GARCIA, P.C.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Honorable Josephine Staton Tucker, United States District Judge

CIVIL MINUTES -- GENERAL

Present: Honorable JOSEPHINE STATON TUCKER, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dwayne Roberts N/A

Deputy Clerk Court Reporter

ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR PLAINTIFF: ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR DEFENDANT:

Not Present Not Present

PROCEEDINGS: (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO SHOW CAUSE RE SUBJECT-MATTER JURISDICTION

Plaintiff Bisnar Chase Personal Injury Attorneys, LLP filed this case in federal court on the basis of diversity jurisdiction. (Compl. ¶ 2, Doc. 1.) Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Law Office of Ramon Garcia, P.C. is a Texas corporation with its principal place of business in Texas, and thus properly alleges that Defendant is a citizen of Texas. (Id. ¶ 5). However, Plaintiff fails to properly allege its own citizenship. Plaintiff asserts that it is a limited liability partnership "created and existing under the laws of the state of California, with its principal place of business in and being resident of Orange County, California." (Id. ¶ 4). But Plaintiff fails to allege the citizenship of each of its partners, which is required to properly establish the citizenship of unincorporated partnerships. Great S. Fire Proof Hotel Co. v. Jones, 177 U.S. 449, 456 (1900) ("[W]e must look in the case of a suit by or against a partnership association to the citizenship of the several persons composing such association."). Because "diversity of citizenship [exists only when] there is complete diversity between all named plaintiffs and all named defendants," Lincoln Prop. Co. v. Roche, 546 U.S. 81, 84 (2005), the Court lacks sufficient information to determine whether diversity exists between parties.

Accordingly, Plaintiff is ordered to show cause no later than May 10, 2013, why this case should not be dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Failure to timely respond will result in immediate dismissal of this action.

20130429

© 1992-2013 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.