Stephen H. Smith v. Ascension Acquisition LLC et al.

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: December 10, 2025
• Docket: 2:24-cv-01987
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4

5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 9 10 STEPHEN H. SMITH, CASE NO. 2:24-cv-01987-LK 11 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 12 v. 13 ASCENSION ACQUISITION LLC et al., 14 Defendants. 15 16 This matter comes before the Court sua sponte. Plaintiff Stephen Smith asserts that the 17 Court has subject matter jurisdiction “because there is complete diversity of citizenship between 18 the parties as no person or entity, other than Mr. Smith, resides in the State of Washington, and the 19 matter in controversy exceeding the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs.” Dkt. 20 No. 1 at 2. For the reasons discussed below, Smith has failed to properly set forth the parties’ 21 citizenship. 22 Federal courts “have an independent obligation to determine whether subject-matter 23 jurisdiction exists[.]” Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 514 (2006). This determination is an 24 1 “inflexible” threshold requirement that must be made “without exception, for jurisdiction is power 2 to declare the law and without jurisdiction the court cannot proceed at all in any cause.” Ruhrgas 3 AG v. Marathon Oil Co., 526 U.S. 574, 577 (1999) (citation modified). “If the court determines at 4 any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action.” Fed. R. Civ.

5 P. 12(h)(3). 6 Smith does not properly set forth his own citizenship, nor the citizenship of Defendants. 7 See Dkt. No. 1 at 1–2 (pleading that Smith “is a resident of the State of Washington”; Ryker 8 Douglas “is now a Florida limited liability company, which, upon information and belief, is 9 principally owned by Messrs. Leech and Boggs and managed, in part, by Mr. Boggs. RD’s 10 principal place of business is in Largo, Florida”; Leech “is, upon information and belief, an 11 individual residing in Windermere, Florida. Mr. Leech is an owner of the equity interest of RD 12 along with Mr. Boggs”; and “[u]pon additional information and belief, Mr. Leech transferred a 13 majority interest in RD to Mr. Boggs to mislead a private equity purchaser Renovus, with regard 14 to what he owned, but whether that illusory transfer was reversed after the fact is unknown”; “Mr.

15 Boggs is not a resident of the State of Washington”). 16 Individuals are citizens of the place in which they are domiciled, which is not necessarily 17 the same as where they reside. Kanter v. Warner-Lambert Co., 265 F.3d 853, 857 (9th Cir. 2001) 18 (“A person residing in a given state is not necessarily domiciled there, and thus is not necessarily 19 a citizen of that state.”). And an LLC “is a citizen of every state of which its owners/members are 20 citizens.” Johnson v. Columbia Props. Anchorage, LP, 437 F.3d 894, 899 (9th Cir. 2006). 21 “It is to be presumed that a cause lies outside th[e] [court’s] limited jurisdiction, and the 22 burden of establishing the contrary rests upon the party asserting jurisdiction.” Kokkonen v. 23 Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). Here, Smith has failed to properly

24 identify the citizenship of the parties. It is therefore unclear whether the parties are truly diverse. 1 See Fifty Assocs. v. Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 446 F.2d 1187, 1190 (9th Cir. 1970) (“Failure to 2 make proper and complete allegations of diversity jurisdiction relegates a litigant to . . . 3 jurisdictional purgatory[.]”); see also, e.g., Un Boon Kim v. Shellpoint Partners, LLC, No. 15-cv- 4 611-LAB (BLM), 2016 WL 1241541, at *5 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 30, 2016) (finding that diversity was

5 inadequately pled when the operative complaint made “the conclusory allegation that ‘[Defendant] 6 is a citizen of the state of Georgia.’”). 7 Therefore, the Court ORDERS Smith to show cause why this case should not be dismissed 8 for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction due to lack of complete diversity of citizenship. The Court 9 further ORDERS Defendant Ryker Douglas, LLC to file a corrected Corporate Disclosure 10 Statement that “identifies any parent corporation and any publicly held corporation owning 10% 11 or more of its stock; or [] states that there is no such corporation,” Fed. R. Civ. P. 7.1(a); see also 12 LCR 7.1(a), and clearly names and identifies the citizenship of “every individual or entity whose 13 citizenship is attributed to that party,” Fed. R. Civ. P. 7.1(b); see also LCR 7.1(b). 14 If the parties comply with this Order within seven days, the Court will discharge this Order.

15 Dated this 10th day of December, 2025. 16 A 17 Lauren King United States District Judge 18 19 20 21 22 23 24