Long v. Lush Cosmetics, LLC

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: September 5, 2023
• Docket: 3:23-cv-04268
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 VICTORIA LONG, Case No. 23-cv-04268-JSC

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

10 LUSH COSMETICS, LLC, Re: Dkt. No. 1 Defendant. 11

12 13 In the operative complaint, Victoria Long brings claims against Lush Cosmetics, LLC 14 (Lush). (Dkt. No. 1.)1 Lush asserts federal subject matter jurisdiction based on diversity. (Id. ¶¶ 15 5-6.) Ms. Long is domiciled in California. (Id. ¶ 8.) The complaint alleges Lush is “a limited 16 liability company incorporated and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware” that “does 17 not maintain a principal place of business in California.” (Id. ¶¶ 10-11.) 18 Because “an LLC is a citizen of every state of which its owners/members are citizens,” 19 Johnson v. Columbia Props. Anchorage, LP, 437 F.3d 894, 899 (9th Cir. 2006), Lush’s state of 20 incorporation and principal place of business are irrelevant to the question of diversity jurisdiction. 21 Therefore, Lush’s notice of removal does not properly allege diversity jurisdiction. No other basis 22 for federal subject matter jurisdiction is clear from the complaint. See Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. 23 Liberatore, 408 F.3d 1158, 1161–62 (9th Cir. 2005) (explaining that, despite “inartful pleading,” 24 complaint “expressly states that resolution of its claims would require the federal court to apply 25 the Federal Tort Claims Act, a clear indication . . . [of] federal subject-matter jurisdiction”). 26 Accordingly, on or before September 19, 2023, Lush shall make a supplemental filing 27 1 setting forth the citizenship of each member of Lush. See Kokkonen vy. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of 2 Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994) (‘Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. ... It is to be 3 presumed that a cause lies outside this limited jurisdiction, and the burden of establishing the 4 || contrary rests upon the party asserting jurisdiction.” (cleaned up)); see also Hertz Corp. v. Friend, 5 559 U.S. 77, 94 (2010) (“Courts have an independent obligation to determine whether subject- 6 || matter jurisdiction exists, even when no party challenges it.”’). 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 Dated: September 5, 2023 9

JAGQQUELINE SCOTT CORL I United States District Judge a 12

2B

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