Erickson v. JPMorgan Chase Bank NA

Opinion

1 2 3 4

5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 9 10 JOHN ERICKSON et al., CASE NO. 2:23-cv-01801-LK 11 Plaintiffs, ORDER TO FILE AMENDED 12 v. CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENTS 13 JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A. et al., 14 Defendants. 15

16 This matter comes before the Court sua sponte. The corporate disclosure statements filed 17 by Defendants McCarthy & Holthus, LLP (“M&H”), Dkt. No. 12, and Quality Loan Service Corp. 18 of Washington (“QLS”), Dkt. No. 13, do not provide all of the information required by the federal 19 and local rules of civil procedure and necessary for the Court to determine whether it has subject 20 matter jurisdiction or a conflict in this matter.1 21 Federal courts “have an independent obligation to determine whether subject-matter 22 jurisdiction exists[.]” Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 514 (2006). This determination is an 23 1 Even if M&H and QLS are fraudulently joined as Defendants allege, Dkt. No. 1 at 2–3, they are still required to 24 comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 7.1 and Local Civil Rule 7.1. 1 “inflexible” threshold requirement that must be made “without exception, for jurisdiction is power 2 to declare the law and without jurisdiction the court cannot proceed at all in any cause.” Ruhrgas 3 AG v. Marathon Oil Co., 526 U.S. 574, 577 (1999) (cleaned up). 4 M&H’s corporate disclosure statement states that it “is a California limited liability

5 partnership with multiple individual partners, none of which is a corporation,” Dkt. No. 12 at 1, 6 but it does not identify all partners in the LLP or their citizenship. This is insufficient. Local Rule 7 7.1 requires a party to identify all partners in an LLP and, in diversity cases like this, the citizenship 8 of those partners. See LCR 7.1(a)(1), (b); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 7.1(a)(2). 9 QLS’s corporate disclosure statement states that “[n]o publicly-held company owns 10% 10 or more of Quality,” Dkt. No. 13 at 1, but it does not identify any parent corporation or state that 11 there is none. Local Rule 7.1 requires a party to “[i]dentify any parent corporation” or state that 12 there is none. See LCR 7.1(a)(1)–(2); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 7.1(a)(1)–(2). In addition, QLS must 13 identify not only the state where it is incorporated, but also its principal place of business. LCR 14 7.1(b); Fed. R. Civ. P. 7.1(a)(2).

15 M&H and QLS are accordingly ORDERED to file amended corporate disclosure 16 statements no later than December 11, 2023, complying with Local Civil Rule 7.1 and Federal 17 Rule of Civil Procedure 7.1. Failure to do so may result in sanctions. 18 19 Dated this 4th day of December, 2023. 20 A 21 Lauren King United States District Judge 22 23 24