BMO Bank N.A., formerly known as BMO Harris Bank N.A. v. K&M Transport LLC, a California limited liability company; and Melvyn Martinez also known as Melvyn Martinez Benitez

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: October 16, 2025
• Docket: 1:25-cv-01368
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 BMO BANK N.A., formerly known as Case No. 1:25-cv-01368-KES-SKO BMO HARRIS BANK N.A., 11 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE REGARDING SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. (Doc. 1) 14 K&M TRANSPORT LLC, a California limited liability company; and MELVYN 15 MARTINEZ also known as MELVYN MARTINEZ BENITEZ, 16 17 Defendants. 18 On October 14, 2025, Plaintiff BMO Bank N.A., a “national banking association,” filed a 19 complaint against Defendants K&M Transport LLC and Melvyn Martinez asserting claims for 20 breach of contract. (Doc. 1 at ¶¶ 40–75.) 21 Plaintiff asserts this Court has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. (Doc. 1 22 ¶ 1.) The burden of establishing subject matter jurisdiction “rests upon the party asserting 23 jurisdiction.” Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994); see also 24 Romero v. Securus Techs., Inc., 216 F. Supp. 3d 1078, 1085 (S.D. Cal. 2016) (“As the party putting 25 the claims before the court, Plaintiffs bear the burden of establishing jurisdiction.”). The Court 26 may consider the issue of subject matter jurisdiction sua sponte at any time during the proceeding, 27 and if the Court finds “it lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action.” Fed. 28 R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3); Scholastic Ent., Inc. v. Fox Ent. Grp., Inc., 336 F.3d 982, 985 (9th Cir. 2003). 1 See also Valdez v. Allstate Ins. Co., 372 F.3d 1115, 1116 (9th Cir. 2004) (noting federal courts are 2 “obligated to consider sua sponte whether [they] have subject matter jurisdiction”). As described 3 below, Plaintiff’s complaint fails to sufficiently plead federal jurisdiction. 4 Title 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) provides jurisdiction over certain actions between citizens of 5 different states. Complete diversity is a requirement of 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Thus, the “citizenship 6 of each plaintiff [must be] diverse from the citizenship of each defendant.” Caterpillar Inc. v. 7 Lewis, 519 U.S. 61, 68 (1996). For diversity purposes, national banking associations are “citizens 8 of the States in which they are respectively located,” i.e., “in the state designated as its main office.” 9 28 U.S.C. § 1348; Rouse v. Wachovia Mortg., FSB, 747 F.3d 707, 708 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing 10 Wachovia Bank v. Schmidt, 546 U.S. 303 (2006)). A limited liability company (LLC) is the citizen 11 of every state where its owners or members are citizens, regardless of its state of formation or 12 principal place of business; the citizenship of all of its members must be alleged. NewGen, LLC v. 13 Safe Cig, LLC, 840 F.3d 606, 611–12 (9th Cir. 2016). See also Lindley Contours, LLC v. AABB 14 Fitness Holdings, Inc., 414 F. App’x. 62, 64–65 (9th Cir. 2011) (noting that if a member of an LLC 15 is a limited partnership or LLC, a party must also identify the citizenship of each member of that 16 limited partnership or LLC). The citizenship of an individual is “determined by [their] state of 17 domicile, not [their] state of residence.” Kanter v. Warner-Lamber Co., 265 F.3d 853, 857 (9th Cir. 18 2001). 19 Plaintiff did not allege the citizenship of the members or owners of Defendant K&M 20 Transport LLC. The complaint simply states Defendant K&M Transport LLC “is a limited liability 21 company organized under the laws of the State of California with its principal place of business in 22 Kerman, County of Fresno, State of California.” (Doc. 1 ¶ 5.) “Absent unusual circumstances, a 23 party seeking to invoke diversity jurisdiction should be able to allege affirmatively the actual 24 citizenship of the relevant parties.” Kanter v. Warner-Lamber Co., 265 F.3d 853, 857 (9th Cir. 25 2001). Because Plaintiff did not allege the citizenship of the LLC members or owners, the 26 complaint fails to plead complete diversity to establish jurisdiction under § 1332. See Grayson 27 Serv., Inc. v. Crimson Res. Mgmt. Corp., No. 1:14–cv–01125–SAB, 2015 WL 6689261, at *3 (E.D. 28 Cal. Oct. 28, 2015) (granting motion to dismiss where plaintiff’s second amended complaint was 1 “devoid of any mention of the citizenship of the owners of the LLC” because “failure to specify the 2 state citizenship of the parties is fatal to the assertion of diversity jurisdiction”). Accordingly, 3 1. Within fourteen days of the issuance of this order, Plaintiff SHALL show cause in 4 writing why their claims should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 5 2. Alternatively, within fourteen days, Plaintiff may either file an amended complaint 6 that contains allegations addressing the Court’s jurisdiction and the issues identified in 7 this order or may voluntarily dismiss their claims. 8 Failure to comply with this order will result in a recommendation to the to-be-assigned 9 district judge that the case be dismissed without prejudice due to lack of jurisdiction. 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. 11

12 Dated: October 16, 2025 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto . UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 13

14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28