J. A. Carrillo Construction, LLC v. InsureOne Insurance Services America, LLC

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: October 28, 2025
• Docket: 2:25-cv-01952
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

THE HONORABLE JOHN C. COUGHENOUR 1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 8 AT SEATTLE 9 J. A. CARRILLO CONSTRUCTION, LLC, CASE NO. C25-1952-JCC 10 Plaintiff, ORDER 11 v. 12 INSUREONE INSURANCE SERVICES AMERICA, LLC, 13 Defendant. 14 15 This matter comes before the Court sua sponte. Plaintiff alleges that the Court has 16 jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332 because there is complete diversity 17 between the parties and the amount in controversy is more than $75,000. (See Dkt. No. 1 at 2.) 18 However, the Court has an independent obligation to determine whether it has jurisdiction and 19 must dismiss the case if it “determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction.” Fed. 20 R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). Here, the complaint fails to provide sufficient information for the Court to 21 determine whether it, in fact, has subject-matter jurisdiction over this matter. Meaning, it is 22 inadequately pleaded. 23 “A limited liability company ‘is a citizen of every state of which its owners/members are 24 citizens,’ not the state in which it was formed or does business.” NewGen, LLC v. Safe Cig, LLC, 25 840 F.3d 606, 612 (9th Cir. 2016) (quoting Johnson v. Columbia Props. Anchorage, LP, 437 26 1 F.3d 894, 899 (9th Cir. 2006)). As such, to properly plead diversity jurisdiction, a plaintiff must 2 plead “the citizenship of all of the members” for each LLC party in this case and show that there 3 was complete diversity at the time it filed its complaint. Id. at 611.1 Here, however, Plaintiff has 4 not pled the defendant LLC’s members or citizenship of each member. (See Dkt. No. 1 at 2.) 5 Plaintiff has therefore failed to properly plead diversity jurisdiction. See LCRs 7.1, 8. 6 Nevertheless, “[d]efective jurisdictional allegations are not fatal.” NewGen, LLC, 840 7 F.3d at 612. “Courts may permit parties to amend defective allegations of jurisdiction at any 8 stage in the proceedings.” Id.; see also 28 U.S.C. § 1653. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS 9 Plaintiff to show cause why this action should not be dismissed without prejudice for lack of 10 subject-matter jurisdiction by filing an amended complaint which adequately pleads this Court’s 11 diversity jurisdiction on or before November 14, 2025. Defendants must file their response(s) to 12 the amended complaint and corporate disclosure statement(s) within 14 days after service of the 13 amended complaint. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(3). 14 DATED this 28th day of October 2025. A 15 16 17 John C. Coughenour 18 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 19 20 21 22 23 24 1 Importantly, if “the information necessary to establish the diversity of the citizenship of some 25 of the defendants [is] not reasonably available,” a plaintiff may “plead its jurisdictional allegations as to those defendants on information and belief.” Carolina Cas. Ins. Co. v. Team 26 Equip., Inc., 741 F.3d 1082, 1086 (9th Cir. 2014).