Opinion
Case No. CV 11-7926 CAS (SSx)
11-08-2011
WEBCOR CONSTRUCTION, LP v. THE RELATED COMPANIES, LP, ET AL.
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Present: The Honorable CHRISTINA A. SNYDER, U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
+-----------------------------------------------+ ¦RITA SANCHEZ¦N/A ¦N/A ¦ +------------+-------------------------+--------¦ ¦Deputy Clerk¦Court Reporter / Recorder¦Tape No.¦ +-----------------------------------------------+
Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs:
N/A
Attorneys Present for Defendants:
N/A
Proceedings: (In Chambers:) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: WHY ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION
I. INTRODUCTION
Plaintiff Webcor Construction, LP ("Webcor") filed a complaint in this Court against The Related Companies, LP; The Related Realty Group, Inc.; Related Grand Avenue, LLC; Related Grand Avenue Associates, LLP; Related Grand Avenue Associates, LLC; Grand Avenue LA, LLC; Grand Avenue LA Phase II, LLC; Grand Avenue LA Phase III, LLC; and Avenue of the States Associates, LLC (collectively, "defendants"). The complaint alleges claims for breach of contract, specifically, breaches of the Grand Avenue and Avenue of the Stars contracts; quantum meruit and unjust enrichment; promissory estoppel; failing to promptly pay in violation of Cal. Civ. Code § 3260.1; and breach of pretrial settlement.
Webcor, a California limited partnership alleges that the various entity-defendants are not citizens of California, thus, providing this Court with diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Compl. ¶¶ 6-15. In describing defendants' respective citizenships, Webcor lists the jurisdictions under which each entity is organized and principal places of business, but does not list the citizenship of their members. Id.
II. DISCUSSION
Jurisdiction founded on diversity requires that parties be in complete diversity and the amount in controversy exceed $75,000. Matheson v. Progressive Speciality Ins. Co., 319 F.3d 1089, 1090 (9th Cir. 2003); see 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1) ("[T]he district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions where the matter of controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and is between . . . citizens of different States . . ."). Federal courts have jurisdiction only where there is complete diversity: the plaintiff's citizenship must be diverse from that of each named defendant. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332(a), 1332(c)(1).
A corporation is a citizen of the state where it incorporated and of the state where it has its principal place of business. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c). A partnership is treated as a citizen of each state in which its members are citizens. Grupo Dataflux v. Atlas Global Group, LP, 541 U.S. 567, 569 (2004). A limited liability company is treated the same as a partnership for diversity jurisdiction purposes, and therefore is a citizen of each state in which its members are citizens. Johnson v. Columbia Properties Anchorage, LP, 437 F.3d 354, 356 (9th Cir. 2006).
Remand may be ordered either for lack of subject matter jurisdiction or for any defect in removal procedure. See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).
Here, the complaint names a litany of partnership and limited liability company defendants, but fails to name these entities' members and members' citizenships. See generally, complaint. Thus, it is unclear whether each defendant is diverse for purposes of diversity jurisdiction. See Grupo Dataflux, 541 U.S. at 569.
III. CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, Webcor is hereby ORDERED to SHOW CAUSE within twenty (20) days why the instant action should not be dismissed for lack of complete diversity.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
00 : 00
Initials of RS
Preparer