Shenzhen Jame Technology Corp., Ltd. v. Vinci Brands LLC

• Court: District Court, C.D. California
• Decided: March 8, 2023
• Docket: 8:23-cv-00372
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

Case 8:23-cv-00372-FWS-JDE Document 10 Filed 03/08/23 Page 1 of 2 Page ID #:107

_____________________________________________________________________ UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

Case No.: 8:23-cv-00372-FWS-JDE Date: March 8, 2023 Title: Shenzhen Jame Technology Corp., Ltd. v. Vinci Brands LLC et al.

Present: HONORABLE FRED W. SLAUGHTER, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Melissa H. Kunig N/A Deputy Clerk Court Reporter

Attorneys Present for Plaintiff: Attorneys Present for Defendants:

Not Present Not Present

PROCEEDINGS: (IN CHAMBERS): ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION

This action was filed in this court on March 2, 2023. (Dkt. 1.) Jurisdiction is alleged on the basis of diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332. However, it appears the court may lack subject matter jurisdiction because the Complaint may not adequately allege the citizenship of all artificial entities. (See Dkt. 1.)

Diversity jurisdiction requires complete diversity between the parties and that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. See Strawbridge v. Curtiss, 7 U.S. (3 Cranch) 267, 267 (1806); 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). In the case of a partnership, limited liability company, or other unincorporated association, the court must consider the citizenship of each of the partners, including limited partners, or members. The citizenship of each of the entity’s partners or members must therefore be alleged. Carden v. Arkoma Assocs., 494 U.S. 185, 195-96 (1990); Johnson v. Columbia Props. Anchorage, LP, 437 F.3d 894, 899 (9th Cir. 2006). Where a party is joined as a corporation, the complaint must allege both its respective state(s) of incorporation and principal place of business. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c); Harris v. Rand, 682 F.3d 846, 850 (9th Cir. 2012).

Here, Defendants Vinci Brand LLC and Incipio Technologies LLC are referred to as “corporations” in the caption but alleged to be “companies” in the Complaint. (See Dkt. 1 ¶¶ 7- 8.) Because these entities are designated as “LLCs,” and the Complaint’s allegations do not _____________________________________________________________________________ CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL 1 Case 8:23-cv-00372-FWS-JDE Document 10 Filed 03/08/23 Page 2 of 2 Page ID #:108

_____________________________________________________________________ UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case No.: 8:23-cv-00372-FWS-JDE Date: March 8, 2023 Title: Shenzhen Jame Technology Corp., Ltd. v. Vinci Brands LLC et al. further specify their respective entity forms, it is not clear from the face of the Complaint whether these entities are limited liability companies, (i.e., “LLCs”) or corporations. To the extent they are limited liability companies, the Complaint’s jurisdictional allegations are inadequate.

Accordingly, the court ORDERS Plaintiff to show cause in writing no later than March 22, 2023, why this action should not be dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Failure to respond by the above date will result in the Court dismissing this action. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Link v. Wabash R.R., 370 U.S. 626, 630-31 (1962) (“The authority of a court to dismiss sua sponte for lack of prosecution has generally been considered an ‘inherent power,’ governed . . . by the control necessarily vested in courts to manage their own affairs so as to achieve the orderly and expeditious disposition of cases.”); Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 640-43 (9th Cir. 2002) (affirming sua sponte dismissal with prejudice “for failure to prosecute and for failure to comply with a court order”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3) (“If the court determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action.”); Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 514 (2006) (“The objection that a federal court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction . . . may be raised by a party, or by a court on its own initiative, at any stage in the litigation, even after trial and the entry of judgment.”).

_____________________________________________________________________________ CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL 2