Nippon Paper Industries USA Co Ltd v. Georgia Pacific LLC

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: January 26, 2023
• Docket: 3:22-cv-05743
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4

5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 9 10 NIPPON PAPER INDUSTRIES USA CO., CASE NO. 3:22-cv-05743-LK 11 LTD, ORDER TO FILE AN AMENDED 12 Plaintiff, CORPORATE DISCLOSURE v. STATEMENT 13 GEORGIA PACIFIC, LLC, et al., 14 Defendants. 15 16 This matter comes before the Court sua sponte. Defendant Georgia Pacific, LLC’s 17 corporate disclosure statement, Dkt. No. 13, does not provide all of the information required under 18 Local Civil Rule 7.1 and necessary for the Court to determine if it has jurisdiction over this matter.1 19 Federal courts “have an independent obligation to determine whether subject-matter 20 jurisdiction exists[.]” Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 514 (2006). This determination is an 21 “inflexible” threshold requirement that must be made “without exception, for jurisdiction is power 22

23 1 The allegations in the complaint do not fill in the gaps. Plaintiff Nippon Paper Industries USA Co., Ltd. alleged jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332, but with respect to Georgia Pacific, LLC, it asserts only that “[u]pon 24 information and belief, no member of Georgia-Pacific, LLC is a Washington State citizen.” Dkt. No. 1 at 3–4. 1 to declare the law and without jurisdiction the court cannot proceed at all in any cause.” Ruhrgas 2 AG v. Marathon Oil Co., 526 U.S. 574, 577 (1999) (cleaned up); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3) 3 (the district court “must dismiss” an action if it “determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter 4 jurisdiction”).

5 Federal jurisdiction exists over all civil actions where the matter in controversy exceeds 6 $75,000 and the action is between citizens of different states. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1). For diversity 7 jurisdiction to apply, however, there must be complete diversity among the parties, and, as a 8 general rule, if one or more plaintiffs are citizens of the same state as one or more defendants, 9 federal diversity jurisdiction is absent. Caterpillar Inc. v. Lewis, 519 U.S. 61, 68 & n.3 (1996). 10 Georgia Pacific, LLC is a limited liability corporation, which means it “is a citizen of every 11 state of which its owners/members are citizens” for diversity purposes. Johnson v. Columbia 12 Properties Anchorage, LP, 437 F.3d 894, 899 (9th Cir. 2006). Georgia Pacific, LLC identifies 13 Georgia-Pacific Holdings, LLC as its “sole member,” Dkt. No. 13 at 1, but it does not identify the 14 members of Georgia Pacific Holdings, LLC. This is insufficient. Local Rule 7.1 requires a party

15 to identify any member of the LLC and for any such member, “list those states in which the . . . 16 members are citizens.” See LCR 7.1(a)(1), (b); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 7.1 & Advisory Committee 17 notes to 2002 and 2022 amendments (requiring parties in a diversity action to “name—and identify 18 the citizenship of—every individual or entity whose citizenship is attributed to that party,” and 19 noting that such information is crucial not only to “facilitate an early and accurate determination 20 of jurisdiction,” but also to “support properly informed disqualification decisions in situations that 21 call for automatic disqualification under Canon 3C(1)(c).”). 22 Georgia Pacific, LLC is accordingly ORDERED to file an amended corporate disclosure 23 statement no later than February 9, 2023, complying with Local Civil Rule 7.1 and naming—and

24 1 identifying the citizenship of—every member of Georgia-Pacific Holdings, LLC. Failure to do so 2 may result in sanctions. 3 Dated this 26th day of January, 2023. 4 A

5 Lauren King United States District Judge 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23