Krystal Ventures, LLC v. Gentry Beach

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL

Case No. CV 20-9315-DMG (PDx) Date October 15, 2020

Title Krystal Ventures, LLC v. Gentry Beach Page 1 of 1

Present: The Honorable DOLLY M. GEE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

KANE TIEN NOT REPORTED Deputy Clerk Court Reporter

Attorneys Present for Plaintiff(s) Attorneys Present for Defendant(s) None Present None Present

Proceedings: IN CHAMBERS—ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THIS ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION

On October 9, 2020, Plaintiff Krystal Ventures, LLC filed a Complaint against Defendant Gentry Beach asserting claims for breach of contract, fraud, and unjust enrichment. [Doc. # 1.]

Plaintiff asserts subject matter jurisdiction based on the existence of complete diversity, 28 U.S.C. § 1332, but the Complaint fails to adequately plead “complete diversity between the parties,” namely, that Defendant is a citizen of a different state than Plaintiff. Diaz v. Davis, 549 F.3d 1223, 1234 (9th Cir. 2008) (citing Strawbridge v. Curtiss, 7 U.S. (3 Cranch) 267, 267, 2 L. Ed. 435 (1806)); see Compl. at ¶ 6. Plaintiff is a limited liability company and is therefore a citizen of every state in which its owners or members are citizens. See Johnson v. Columbia Props. Advantage, LP, 437 F.3d 894, 899 (9th Cir. 2006). The Complaint fails to plead the citizenship of any of Plaintiff’s owners or members.

In light of the foregoing, Plaintiff is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE in writing by no later than October 22, 2020 why this action should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

IT IS SO ORDERED.