Suzette Acosta v. Black Gold Compost Company, LLC, et al.

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 SUZETTE ACOSTA, Case No. 1:26-cv-03893-KES-EGC

9 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE REGARDING Plaintiff, SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION 10 v. (Doc. 1) 11 12 BLACK GOLD COMPOST COMPANY, LLC, et al., 13 14 Defendants. 15 16 On May 20, 2026, Plaintiff Suzette Acosta filed a complaint against Defendants Black 17 Gold Compost Company, LLC and Black Gold Compost Holdings, Inc. asserting various state 18 law claims. (Doc. 1 at ¶¶ 118–64). 19 Plaintiff asserts this Court has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. (Id. 20 ¶ 20). The burden of establishing subject matter jurisdiction “rests upon the party asserting 21 jurisdiction.” Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994); see also 22 Romero v. Securus Techs., Inc., 216 F. Supp. 3d 1078, 1085 (S.D. Cal. 2016) (“As the party putting 23 the claims before the court, Plaintiffs bear the burden of establishing jurisdiction.”). The Court 24 may consider the issue of subject matter jurisdiction sua sponte at any time during the proceeding, 25 and if the Court finds “it lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action.” Fed. 26 R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3); Scholastic Ent., Inc. v. Fox Ent. Grp., Inc., 336 F.3d 982, 985 (9th Cir. 2003). 27 See also Valdez v. Allstate Ins. Co., 372 F.3d 1115, 1116 (9th Cir. 2004) (noting federal courts are 28 1 “obligated to consider sua sponte whether [they] have subject matter jurisdiction”). As described 2 below, Plaintiff’s complaint fails to sufficiently plead federal jurisdiction. 3 Title 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) provides jurisdiction over certain actions between citizens of 4 different states. Complete diversity is a requirement of section 1332. Thus, the “citizenship of 5 each plaintiff [must be] diverse from the citizenship of each defendant.” Caterpillar Inc. v. Lewis, 6 519 U.S. 61, 68 (1996). For diversity purposes, a limited liability company (“LLC”) is the citizen 7 of every state where its owners or members are citizens, regardless of its state of formation or 8 principal place of business; the citizenship of all of its members must be alleged. NewGen, LLC 9 v. Safe Cig, LLC, 840 F.3d 606, 611–12 (9th Cir. 2016); see also Lindley Contours, LLC v. AABB 10 Fitness Holdings, Inc., 414 F. App’x. 62, 64–65 (9th Cir. 2011) (noting that if a member of an 11 LLC is a limited partnership or LLC, a party must also identify the citizenship of each member of 12 that limited partnership or LLC). The citizenship of an individual is “determined by [their] state 13 of domicile, not [their] state of residence.” Kanter v. Warner-Lamber Co., 265 F.3d 853, 857 (9th 14 Cir. 2001). Corporations are citizens of their states of incorporation and their principal places of 15 business. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c); Harris v. Rand, 682 F.3d 846, 850 (9th Cir. 2012). 16 Plaintiff did not allege the citizenship of the members or owners of Defendant Black Gold 17 Compost Company, LLC. The complaint simply states Defendant Black Gold Compost 18 Company, LLC “is a Florida limited liability company with its principal place of business [in 19 Florida]”. (Doc. 1 ¶ 20). “Absent unusual circumstances, a party seeking to invoke diversity 20 jurisdiction should be able to allege affirmatively the actual citizenship of the relevant parties.” 21 Kanter v. Warner-Lamber Co., 265 F.3d 853, 857 (9th Cir. 2001). Because Plaintiff did not allege 22 the citizenship of the LLC members or owners, the complaint fails to plead complete diversity to 23 establish jurisdiction under section 1332. See Grayson Serv., Inc. v. Crimson Res. Mgmt. Corp., 24 No. 1:14–cv–01125–SAB, 2015 WL 6689261, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 28, 2015) (granting motion 25 to dismiss where plaintiff’s second amended complaint was “devoid of any mention of the 26 citizenship of the owners of the LLC” because “failure to specify the state citizenship of the parties 27 is fatal to the assertion of diversity jurisdiction”). Accordingly, 28 1. Within fourteen days of the issuance of this order, Plaintiff SHALL show cause in ] writing why their claims should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter 2 jurisdiction. 3 2. Alternatively, within fourteen days, Plaintiff may either file an amended complaint 4 that contains allegations addressing the Court’s jurisdiction and the issues identified 5 in this order or may voluntarily dismiss their claims. 6 Failure to comply with this order will result in a recommendation to the to-be- 7 | assigned district judge that the case dismissed without prejudice due to lack_of 8 | jurisdiction. 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. . Dated: _ May 20, 2026 Cx tin de Gallo UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28