Cain v. Barrett-Jackson Holdings LLC

Opinion

1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

9 Dylan Cain, et al., No. CV-25-03017-PHX-MTL

10 Plaintiff, ORDER

11 v.

12 Barrett-Jackson Holdings LLC,

13 Defendant. 14 15 Plaintiff Dylan Cain filed this action in federal court by invoking jurisdiction under 16 the Class Action Fairness Act (“CAFA”), 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d). (Doc. 1 at 6 ¶ 25.) The 17 complaint asserts that Defendant Barrett-Jackson Holdings, LLC is “a limited liability 18 company formed under the laws of Delaware and with its principal place of business at 19 15555 North 79th Place, Scottsdale, Arizona 85260.” (Id. ¶ 24.) The complaint further 20 alleges that Plaintiff “was a resident and citizen of the State of Washington” at all relevant 21 times. (Id. at 5 ¶ 21.) These allegations are insufficient to establish jurisdiction under 22 CAFA. 23 Under CAFA, federal jurisdiction exists where there is minimal diversity, an 24 aggregate amount in controversy exceeding $5,000,000, and at least 100 putative class 25 members. § 1332(d)(2), (d)(5)(B). Minimal diversity is satisfied when “any member of a 26 class of plaintiffs is a citizen of a State different from any defendant[.]” Id. § 1332(d)(2)(A). 27 For a limited liability company (“LLC”), citizenship is determined by the citizenship of 28 every one of its members, not by its state of organization or principal place of business. 1|| See Johnson v. Columbia Props. Anchorage, LP, 437 F.3d 894, 899 (9th Cir. 2006). The || citizenship of each LLC member must be disclosed, and ownership must be traced through 3 || each layer “until reaching a natural person or a corporation.” City of E. St. Louis, Ill. v. 4|| Netflix, Inc., 83 F.4th 1066, 1070 (7th Cir. 2023). The present allegations do not identify 5 || the members of Barrett-Jackson Holdings, LLC or their citizenships, and therefore do not || allow the Court to assess minimal diversity or any potential CAFA exception. See 7\| Rosenwald v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., No. 24-299, 2025 WL 2715322, at *3 (9th Cir. Sept. 24, 2025). 9 Additionally, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 7.1 and LRCiv 7.1.1, || Defendant must file a disclosure statement. Specifically, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 || (‘Rule’) 7.1(a)(2) provides that “[i]n an action in which jurisdiction is based on diversity under § 1332(a),” a party must file a disclosure statement naming—and identifying the 13 || citizenship of—every individual or entity whose citizenship is attributed to that party. Although Rule 7.1(a)(2) refers to § 1332(a), the Court finds that, as to Defendant, the same 15 || disclosure obligation appropriately applies in cases invoking jurisdiction under § 1332(d). 16 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that, on or before October 6, 2025, Plaintiff || must file a supplement to the complaint fully and properly pleading subject-matter 18 |} jurisdiction. Failure to comply will result in dismissal of this action without prejudice. 19 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, on or before October 6, 2025, Defendant □□ Barrett-Jackson Holdings, LLC must file a disclosure statement as required by Rule 7.1 || and LRCiv 7.1.1. 22 Dated this 26th day of September, 2025. 23 Michal T. Siburde Michael T. Liburdi 26 United States District Judge 27 28

_2-