Opinion
24-cv-03496-JSC
07-01-2024
TEXAS INSURANCE COMPANY, A CORPORATION, Plaintiff, v. FAIRFIELD GREAT OAKS, LP, et al., Defendants.
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: DIVERSITY JURISDICTION
JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Plaintiff sues Defendants for claims arising from a coverage dispute. (Dkt. No. 1.) Plaintiff asserts federal subject matter jurisdiction based on diversity. (Id. ¶ 6.) Defendants Fairfield Great Oaks and Fairfield Development are limited partnerships, and Defendant Fairfield Residential Company is a limited liability company. (Id. ¶¶ 2-4.) Limited partnerships and limited liability companies are “citizen[s] of every state of which its owners/members are citizens.” Johnson v. Columbia Properties Anchorage, LP, 437 F.3d 894, 899 (9th Cir. 2006). Plaintiff fails to properly allege diversity jurisdiction because Plaintiff fails to allege the citizenship of each of the “owners/members” of Defendants. Id.
Record citations are to material in the Electronic Case File (“ECF”); pinpoint citations are to the ECF-generated page numbers at the top of the documents.
Accordingly, on or before July 15, 2024, Plaintiff shall make a supplemental filing setting forth the citizenship of each of Defendants' members. See Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994) (“Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction....It is to be presumed that a cause lies outside this limited jurisdiction, and the burden of establishing the contrary rests upon the party asserting jurisdiction.” (cleaned up)); see also Hertz Corp. v. Friend, 559 U.S. 77, 94 (2010) (“Courts have an independent obligation to determine whether subject- matter jurisdiction exists, even when no party challenges it.”).
IT IS SO ORDERED.