Mildred Parrillo v. Episource, LLC

C.D. California

Mildred Parrillo v. Episource, LLC

DecidedJune 23, 2025

Docket2:25-cv-05504

StatusUnknown

This text of Mildred Parrillo v. Episource, LLC (Mildred Parrillo v. Episource, 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

Mildred Parrillo v. Episource, LLC, (C.D. Cal. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MILDRED PARRILLO, Case No. 2:25-cv-05504-SB-MBK

Plaintiff,

v. ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE SUBJECT-MATTER EPISOURCE, LLC, JURISDICTION

Defendant.

Federal courts have subject-matter jurisdiction only over matters authorized by the Constitution and Congress. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). This Court has a duty to assess whether federal subject-matter jurisdiction exists and may consider the issue sua sponte at any stage of the proceedings. Allstate Ins. Co. v. Hughes, 358 F.3d 1089, 1093 (9th Cir. 2004); see also Ruhrgas AG v. Marathon Oil Co., 526 U.S. 574, 583 (1999) (recognizing that “Article III generally requires a federal court to satisfy itself of its jurisdiction over the subject matter before it considers the merits of a case”).

Plaintiff invokes federal jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA). CAFA provides that federal courts have subject-matter jurisdiction over class actions in which the amount in controversy exceeds $5 million and any member of the class is a citizen of a state different from any defendant. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2).

In her complaint, Plaintiff states that Defendant is a California limited liability company with its principal place of business in California. Dkt. No. 1 ¶ 17. However, the citizenship of a limited liability company is determined by the citizenship of each of its members. Johnson v. Columbia Props. Anchorage, LP, 437 F.3d 894, 899 (9th Cir. 2006). Plaintiff has not provided any information about the identity or citizenship of Defendant’s members. Without such information, the Court is unable to determine whether jurisdiction is proper. Plaintiff is ORDERED to show cause, in writing, by no later than June 27, 2025, whether the Court has jurisdiction over this case by demonstrating Defendant’s citizenship. Failure to timely comply will result in dismissal for lack of jurisdiction.

Date: June 23, 2025 ___________________________ Stanley Blumenfeld, Jr. United States District Judge

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MILDRED PARRILLO, Case No. 2:25-cv-05504-SB-MBK

Plaintiff,

v. ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE SUBJECT-MATTER EPISOURCE, LLC, JURISDICTION

Defendant.

Federal courts have subject-matter jurisdiction only over matters authorized by the Constitution and Congress. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). This Court has a duty to assess whether federal subject-matter jurisdiction exists and may consider the issue sua sponte at any stage of the proceedings. Allstate Ins. Co. v. Hughes, 358 F.3d 1089, 1093 (9th Cir. 2004); see also Ruhrgas AG v. Marathon Oil Co., 526 U.S. 574, 583 (1999) (recognizing that “Article III generally requires a federal court to satisfy itself of its jurisdiction over the subject matter before it considers the merits of a case”).

Plaintiff invokes federal jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA). CAFA provides that federal courts have subject-matter jurisdiction over class actions in which the amount in controversy exceeds $5 million and any member of the class is a citizen of a state different from any defendant. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2).

In her complaint, Plaintiff states that Defendant is a California limited liability company with its principal place of business in California. Dkt. No. 1 ¶ 17. However, the citizenship of a limited liability company is determined by the citizenship of each of its members. Johnson v. Columbia Props. Anchorage, LP, 437 F.3d 894, 899 (9th Cir. 2006). Plaintiff has not provided any information about the identity or citizenship of Defendant’s members. Without such information, the Court is unable to determine whether jurisdiction is proper. Plaintiff is ORDERED to show cause, in writing, by no later than June 27, 2025, whether the Court has jurisdiction over this case by demonstrating Defendant’s citizenship. Failure to timely comply will result in dismissal for lack of jurisdiction.

Date: June 23, 2025 ___________________________ Stanley Blumenfeld, Jr. United States District Judge

Allstate Insurance Company, an Illinois Corporation v. Devon Hughes Penny Hughes, and the Marital Community Composed Thereof Devon Hughes Construction, a Washington Sole-Proprietorship Phil's Painting, a Washington Sole-Proprietorship, Allstate Insurance Company, an Illinois Corporation v. Devon Hughes Penny Hughes, and the Marital Community Composed Thereof Devon Hughes Construction, a Washington Sole-Proprietorship Phil's Painting, a Washington Sole-Proprietorship

358 F.3d 1089 (Ninth Circuit, 2004)

Morris Johnson, Jr. v. Columbia Properties Anchorage, Lp, Morris Johnson, Jr. v. Columbia Properties Anchorage, Lp

437 F.3d 894 (Ninth Circuit, 2006)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Mildred Parrillo v. Episource, LLC, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mildred-parrillo-v-episource-llc-cacd-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack