Hanke v. Trembly

• Court: District Court, D. Arizona
• Decided: December 5, 2024
• Docket: 2:24-cv-03413
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

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

9 Dietmar Hanke, No. CV-24-03413-PHX-KML

10 Plaintiff, ORDER

11 v.

12 Jason Trembly, et al.,

13 Defendants. 14 15 Plaintiff Dietmar Hanke filed this suit against ten defendants alleging diversity 16 jurisdiction. (Doc. 1 at 1-2.) The complaint alleges Hanke is a “resident of Phoenix, 17 Arizona” and “[a]t least three of the listed defendants . . . were/are residents of Florida and 18 Delaware.” (Doc. 1 at 2.) The complaint also alleges three of the individuals named as 19 defendants are Arizona residents. Two of those Arizona residents own the defendant 20 companies. (Doc. 1 at 3.) Hanke is required to file a supplement establishing complete 21 diversity of citizenship. 22 The defendant companies are limited liability companies. “[A]n LLC is a citizen of 23 every state of which its owners/members are citizens.” Johnson v. Columbia Properties 24 Anchorage, LP, 437 F.3d 894, 899 (9th Cir. 2006). The complaint alleges defendants John 25 Rowley and Marcia Rowley “are/were” the owners of the defendant LLCs. The supplement 26 must state whether the Rowley are the only owners/members of the LLCs. If there are other 27 members, they must be identified. 28 The complaint’s allegations identify the residency of defendants. “But the diversity 1 || jurisdiction statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1332, speaks of citizenship, not of residency.” Kanter v. 2|| Warner-Lambert Co., 265 F.3d 853, 857 (9th Cir. 2001). Hanke’s supplement must allege 3|| the citizenship, not the residency, of each defendant. That must include the named 4|| defendants as well as any other owners/members of the LLCs. 5 Finally, diversity jurisdiction “requires ‘complete diversity’ of citizenship, meaning || that ‘the citizenship of each plaintiff is diverse from the citizenship of each defendant.’” 7\| Demarest v. HSBC Bank USA, N.A., 920 F.3d 1223, 1226 (9th Cir. 2019) (quoting 8 || Caterpillar v. Lewis, 519 U.S. 61, 68 (1996)). Instead of “complete diversity,” the 9|| complaint appears to believe it is sufficient for there to be “minimal diversity” between the 10 || parties. “Minimal diversity” refers to the plaintiff being a citizen of a state different from 11 || any defendant. See, e.g., Ehrman v. Cox Commce’ns, Inc., 932 F.3d 1223, 1226 (9th Cir. || 2019). But minimal diversity is not enough. See Broadway Grill, Inc. v. Visa Inc., 856 F.3d 13 || 1274, 1277 (9th Cir. 2017) (“complete diversity” is required in most civil actions but “minimal diversity” is sufficient in certain class actions). 15 Accordingly, 16 IT IS ORDERED no later than December 12, 2024, plaintiff shall file a 17 || supplement identifying the members or owners of each LLC and the citizenship of every 18 || relevant individual or entity. 19 Dated this 5th day of December, 2024. 20

22 AA ANCA OP AA □□ Honorable Krissa M. Lanham 23 United States District Judge 24 25 26 27 28

_2-