Edwards v. Thermigen LLC

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: January 12, 2023
• Docket: 3:21-cv-01828
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 FERNANDO EDWARDS, et al., Case No. 21-cv-01828-JSC

8 Plaintiffs, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: 9 v. DIVERSITY JURISDICTION

10 THERMIGEN LLC, Re: Dkt. No. 56 Defendant. 11

12 13 In the operative first amended complaint (“FAC”), Dr. Sharon de Edwards brings claims 14 against Thermigen LLC. (Dkt. No. 56.)1 Dr. de Edwards, a citizen of California, asserts federal 15 subject matter jurisdiction on the basis of diversity. (Id. ¶¶ 1, 5.) The FAC alleges Thermigen is 16 “a Registered Foreign Corporation in California, located at 4719 South Congress Avenue, Austin, 17 TX 78745, engaged in the sale of Medical Devices and doing business throughout the State of 18 California.” (Id. ¶ 2.) 19 However, “an LLC is a citizen of every state of which its owners/members are citizens.” 20 Johnson v. Columbia Props. Anchorage, LP, 437 F.3d 894, 899 (9th Cir. 2006). Therefore, the 21 FAC does not properly allege diversity jurisdiction because it does not allege the citizenship of 22 each member of Thermigen. No other basis for federal question jurisdiction is clear from the 23 complaint. See Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Liberatore, 408 F.3d 1158, 1161–62 (9th Cir. 2005) 24 (explaining that, despite “inartful pleading,” complaint “expressly states that resolution of its 25 claims would require the federal court to apply the Federal Tort Claims Act, a clear indication . . . 26 [of] federal subject-matter jurisdiction”). 27 1 Accordingly, on or before January 19, 2023, Dr. de Edwards shall make a supplemental 2 || filing setting forth the citizenship of each member of Thermigen. See Kokkonen v. Guardian Life 3 || Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994) (“Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. ... It 4 || is to be presumed that a cause lies outside this limited jurisdiction, and the burden of establishing 5 || the contrary rests upon the party asserting jurisdiction.” (cleaned up)); see also Hertz Corp. v. 6 || Friend, 559 U.S. 77, 94 (2010) (“Courts have an independent obligation to determine whether 7 subject-matter jurisdiction exists, even when no party challenges it.”). 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. 9 Dated: January 12, 2023 10 ll Me JXCQUELINE SCOTT CORL 12 United States District Judge

15 16

it

Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28