United States District Court, C.D. California
SHANDONG WANBAO GROUP CO. LTD.
RERUBBER LLC ET AL
Present: The Honorable BEVERLY REID O’CONNELL, United
States District Judge.
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: SUBJECT MATTER
HONORABLE BEVERLY REID O’CONNELL, UNITED STATES
federal court must determine its own jurisdiction, even where
there is no objection to it. Rains v. Criterion Sys.,
Inc., 80 F.3d 339, 342 (9th Cir. 1996). Because federal
courts are of limited jurisdiction, they possess original
jurisdiction only as authorized by the Constitution and
federal statute. See Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co.
of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). Original jurisdiction
may be established pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332, which
provides that a federal district court has jurisdiction over
a civil action between citizens of different states where the
amount in controversy exceeds $75, 000. 28 U.S.C. §
1332. The United States Supreme Court has interpreted the
diversity statute to require “complete diversity of
citizenship, ” meaning that each plaintiff must be
diverse from each defendant.” Caterpillar Inc. v.
Lewis, 519 U.S. 61, 67-68 (1996).
Complaint, Plaintiff Shandong Wanbao Group Co. Ltd.
(“Plaintiff”) alleges that this Court has subject
matter jurisdiction over this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1332(a)(2) and that there is complete diversity
between Plaintiff and Defendants reRubber LLC
(“reRubber”), Enertech Solutions, LLC
(“Enertech”), Lan Chen, and J.D.
Wang. (Dkt. No. 1 (hereinafter,
“Compl.”) ¶¶ 1, 3-7.) More
specifically, Plaintiff claims it is a corporation duly
organized under the laws of the Peoples Republic of China.
(Compl. ¶ 3.) With respect to the LLC Defendants,
reRubber and Enertech, Plaintiff avers that Defendants
reRubber and Enertech are Nevada limited liability companies
qualified to do business in California and conducting
business in Ontario, California. (Compl. ¶¶ 4, 5.)
Plaintiff further maintains that Enertech is the managing
member of reRubber and owns 47.6 percent membership interest
in Defendant reRubber. (Compl. ¶ 5.) Plaintiff’s
Complaint also provides that Plaintiff itself owns a 26.9
percent membership interest in Defendant reRubber. (Compl.
§ 1332(c), a corporation is a citizen of each state in
which it is incorporated and in the state where it has its
principal place of business. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c). With
regard to limited liability companies, however, the rules
defining “citizenship” are different. A limited
liability company is considered to be a citizen of
every state of which its members are citizens.
See Johnson v. Columbia Props. Anchorage, 437 F.3d
894, 899 (9th Cir. 2006) (“We therefore join our sister
circuits and hold that, like a partnership, an LLC is a
citizen of every state of which its owners/members are
does not sufficiently provide information regarding its
citizenship where it does not indicate its principal place of
business. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c). Nor does
Plaintiff provide adequate information regarding the
citizenship of Defendant reRubber’s and Defendant
Enertech’s members, which is necessary to determine
whether complete diversity in fact exists in this case.
See Johnson, 437 F.3d at 899. Should any one of
Defendant reRubber’s or Defendant Enertech’s
members be a foreign citizen, complete diversity would be
destroyed, and the Court would lack subject matter
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. See Nike,
Inc. v. Comercial Iberica de Exclusivas Deportivas,
S.A., 20 F.3d 987, 991 (9th Cir. 1994)
(“[D]iversity jurisdiction does not encompass a foreign
plaintiff suing foreign defendants.”); Romero v.
Int’l Terminal Operating Co., 358 U.S. 354, 390
n.1 (1959) (explaining that “[t]he grant of diversity
of citizenship jurisdiction contained in [28 U.S.C. §
1332] contains no language which would include a suit by one
alien against another, even where there might also be citizen
Court therefore ORDERS Plaintiff to show cause as to why this
case should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction. Plaintiff shall file its response to this
Court’s Order no later than Monday, June 20, 2016, at
4:00 p.m. An appropriate response will: (1) clarify
Plaintiff’s citizenship, as Plaintiff’s Complaint
fails to allege where Plaintiff has its principal place of
business; (2) provide the citizenship of each of Defendant
reRubber’s members; and, (3) provide the citizenship of
each of Defendant Enertech’s members.
 The Court notes that Plaintiff asserts
that damages will exceed $75, 000, thereby satisfying the
amount-in-controversy requirement. (Compl. ¶¶ 1,
30, 31, 35.)
 The Complaint does not indicate the
members that make up the remaining 25.5 percent
 As discussed above, Plaintiff’s
Complaint appearss to state that Plaintiff is itself a member
of Defendant reRubber, which would necessarily destroy the
complete diversity ...