Mack Financial Services v. Alpha Industrial Services, LLC

C.D. California

Mack Financial Services v. Alpha Industrial Services, LLC

DecidedSeptember 4, 2024

Docket2:24-cv-06913

StatusUnknown

This text of Mack Financial Services v. Alpha Industrial Services, LLC (Mack Financial Services v. Alpha Industrial Services, LLC) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, C.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Mack Financial Services v. Alpha Industrial Services, LLC, (C.D. Cal. 2024).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Case No. CV 24-6913 FMO (JPRx) Date September 4, 2024 Title Mack Financial Services v. Alpha Industrial Services, LLC, et al.

Present: The Honorable Fernando M. Olguin, United States District Judge Vanessa Figueroa None None Deputy Clerk Court Reporter / Recorder Tape No. Attorney Present for Plaintiff(s): Attorney Present for Defendant(s): None Present None Present Proceedings: (In Chambers) Order to Show Cause Re: Jurisdiction On August 15, 2024, Mack Financial Services (“plaintiff”) filed this action against Alpha Industrial, LLC (“Alpha”), Marcellus Ellis (“Ellis”), and Arc Capital, LLC (“Arc”). (See Dkt. 1, Complaint at 2-4). Subject matter jurisdiction is premised on diversity jurisdiction. (See id. at However, plaintiff has failed to put forth sufficient allegations regarding the citizenship of any of the parties. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT plaintiff shall file a First Amended Complaint setting forth the citizenship of each party no later than September 10, 2024. Failure to file a First Amended Complaint by the deadline set forth above shall be deemed as consent to the dismissal of the action without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction and/or failure to comply with a court order. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 629-30, 82 S.Ct. 1386, 1388 (1962); Edwards v. Marin Park, Inc., 356 F.3d 1058, 1065 (9th Cir. 2004) (“The failure of the plaintiff eventually to respond to the court’s ultimatum — either by amending the complaint or by indicating to the court that it will not do so — is properly met with the sanction of a Rule 41(b) dismissal.”); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-63 (9th Cir. 1992) (affirming dismissal for failure to file amended complaint as ordered by district court).

00 : 00 Initials of Preparer vdr

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Case No. CV 24-6913 FMO (JPRx) Date September 4, 2024 Title Mack Financial Services v. Alpha Industrial Services, LLC, et al.

Present: The Honorable Fernando M. Olguin, United States District Judge Vanessa Figueroa None None Deputy Clerk Court Reporter / Recorder Tape No. Attorney Present for Plaintiff(s): Attorney Present for Defendant(s): None Present None Present Proceedings: (In Chambers) Order to Show Cause Re: Jurisdiction On August 15, 2024, Mack Financial Services (“plaintiff”) filed this action against Alpha Industrial, LLC (“Alpha”), Marcellus Ellis (“Ellis”), and Arc Capital, LLC (“Arc”). (See Dkt. 1, Complaint at 2-4). Subject matter jurisdiction is premised on diversity jurisdiction. (See id. at However, plaintiff has failed to put forth sufficient allegations regarding the citizenship of any of the parties. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT plaintiff shall file a First Amended Complaint setting forth the citizenship of each party no later than September 10, 2024. Failure to file a First Amended Complaint by the deadline set forth above shall be deemed as consent to the dismissal of the action without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction and/or failure to comply with a court order. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 629-30, 82 S.Ct. 1386, 1388 (1962); Edwards v. Marin Park, Inc., 356 F.3d 1058, 1065 (9th Cir. 2004) (“The failure of the plaintiff eventually to respond to the court’s ultimatum — either by amending the complaint or by indicating to the court that it will not do so — is properly met with the sanction of a Rule 41(b) dismissal.”); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-63 (9th Cir. 1992) (affirming dismissal for failure to file amended complaint as ordered by district court).

00 : 00 Initials of Preparer vdr

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Mack Financial Services v. Alpha Industrial Services, LLC, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mack-financial-services-v-alpha-industrial-services-llc-cacd-2024.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack