Starlinx Global Service LLC v. American Family Mutual Insurance Company SI

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: August 21, 2020
• Docket: 2:20-cv-01243
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 7 AT SEATTLE 8 STARLINX GLOBAL SERVICE LLC, et al., 9 Plaintiffs, Case No. C20-1243RSL 10 v. ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 11 AMERICAN FAMILY MUTUAL 12 INSURANCE COMPANY, S.I., 13 Defendant. 14 15 This matter comes before the Court sua sponte. On August 18, 2020, defendant 16 removed this action to federal court alleging that the Court has jurisdiction based on the 17 diversity of citizenship of the parties. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) (establishing that the 18 federal court’s basic diversity jurisdiction extends to “all civil actions where the matter in 19 controversy exceeds . . . $75,000 . . . and is between . . . citizens of different States.”). 20 “For a case to qualify for federal jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a), there must be 21 complete diversity of citizenship between the parties opposed in interest.” Kuntz v. Lamar 22 Corp., 385 F.3d 1177, 1181 (9th Cir. 2004) (internal citation omitted). In examining 23 whether complete diversity is present, the citizenship of a limited liability company is 24 determined by examining the citizenship of the owners/members. See Johnson v. 25 26 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE - 1 1 Columbia Props. Anchorage, LP, 437 F.3d 894, 899 (9th Cir. 2006) (holding that “like a 2 partnership, an LLC is a citizen of every state of which its owners/members are citizens”). 3 Defendant has not alleged the citizenship of each owner/member of Starlinx 4 Global Service LLC, noting only that the LLC’s “principal owner” is a resident of 5 Washington. Dkt. # 1 at 2. The subsequent conclusory allegation that complete diversity 6 exists is insufficient to meet defendant’s burden of establishing the basis of the Court’s 7 jurisdiction. See Indus. Tectonics, Inc. v. Aero Alloy, 912 F.2d 1090, 1092 (9th Cir. 1990) 8 (“The party asserting jurisdiction has the burden of proving all jurisdictional facts”); Fed 9 R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3) (“If the Court determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter 10 jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action”). As a result, defendant is ORDERED TO 11 SHOW CAUSE why the Court should not dismiss this action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 12(b)(1) by providing the Court with the citizenship of all of the owners/members of 13 Starlinx Global Service LLC, at the time the complaint was filed, by September 28, 2020. 14 The Clerk of the Court is directed to place this order to show cause on the Court’s 15 calendar for that date. 16 17 Dated this 21st day of August, 2020. A 18 Robert S. Lasnik 19 United States District Judge 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE - 2