1144 Hope ST, LLC v. STS Remodeling Corp

C.D. California

1144 Hope ST, LLC v. STS Remodeling Corp

DecidedFebruary 18, 2025

Docket2:25-cv-00687

StatusUnknown

This text of 1144 Hope ST, LLC v. STS Remodeling Corp (1144 Hope ST, LLC v. STS Remodeling Corp) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, C.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

1144 Hope ST, LLC v. STS Remodeling Corp, (C.D. Cal. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Case No. CV 25-0687 FMO (BFMx) Date February 18, 2025 Title 1144 Hope St, LLC v. STS Remodeling Corp., et al.

Present: The Honorable Fernando M. Olguin, United States District Judge Vanessa Figueroa None None Deputy Clerk Court Reporter / Recorder Tape No. Attorney Present for Plaintiff(s): Attorney Present for Defendant(s): None Present None Present Proceedings: (In Chambers) Order to Show Cause Re: Jurisdiction On January 27, 2025, plaintiff 1144 Hope St, LLC filed this action against STS Remodeling Corp. and Craig C. Haveson asserting a single state law claim. (See Dkt. 1, Complaint). Federal subject matter jurisdiction is based on diversity jurisdiction. (See id. at {| 7). However, plaintiff has failed to put forth sufficient allegations for the court to determine whether it has diversity jurisdiction. More specifically, the citizenship of plaintiff is unclear. Accordingly, IT |S ORDERED THAT plaintiff shall file a First Amended Complaint setting forth its citizenship no later than February 25, 2025. Failure to file a First Amended Complaint by the deadline set forth above shall be deemed as consent to the dismissal of the action without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction and/or failure to comply with a court order. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 629-30, 82 S.Ct. 1386, 1388 (1962); Edwards v. Marin Park, Inc., 356 F.3d 1058, 1065 (9th Cir. 2004) (“The failure of the plaintiff eventually to respond to the court’s ultimatum — either by amending the complaint or by indicating to the court that it will not do so — is properly met with the sanction of a Rule 41(b) dismissal.”); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-63 (9th Cir. 1992) (affirming dismissal for failure to file amended complaint as ordered by district court).

00 : 00 Initials of Preparer vdr

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Case No. CV 25-0687 FMO (BFMx) Date February 18, 2025 Title 1144 Hope St, LLC v. STS Remodeling Corp., et al.

Present: The Honorable Fernando M. Olguin, United States District Judge Vanessa Figueroa None None Deputy Clerk Court Reporter / Recorder Tape No. Attorney Present for Plaintiff(s): Attorney Present for Defendant(s): None Present None Present Proceedings: (In Chambers) Order to Show Cause Re: Jurisdiction On January 27, 2025, plaintiff 1144 Hope St, LLC filed this action against STS Remodeling Corp. and Craig C. Haveson asserting a single state law claim. (See Dkt. 1, Complaint). Federal subject matter jurisdiction is based on diversity jurisdiction. (See id. at {| 7). However, plaintiff has failed to put forth sufficient allegations for the court to determine whether it has diversity jurisdiction. More specifically, the citizenship of plaintiff is unclear. Accordingly, IT |S ORDERED THAT plaintiff shall file a First Amended Complaint setting forth its citizenship no later than February 25, 2025. Failure to file a First Amended Complaint by the deadline set forth above shall be deemed as consent to the dismissal of the action without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction and/or failure to comply with a court order. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 629-30, 82 S.Ct. 1386, 1388 (1962); Edwards v. Marin Park, Inc., 356 F.3d 1058, 1065 (9th Cir. 2004) (“The failure of the plaintiff eventually to respond to the court’s ultimatum — either by amending the complaint or by indicating to the court that it will not do so — is properly met with the sanction of a Rule 41(b) dismissal.”); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-63 (9th Cir. 1992) (affirming dismissal for failure to file amended complaint as ordered by district court).

00 : 00 Initials of Preparer vdr

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1144 Hope ST, LLC v. STS Remodeling Corp, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/1144-hope-st-llc-v-sts-remodeling-corp-cacd-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack