Tylt Inc v. Wireless Advocates LLC

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: March 18, 2020
• Docket: 2:19-cv-00646
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2

3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 8 AT SEATTLE

9 10 TYLT, INC., CASE NO. C19-0646JLR 11 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AND v. STRIKING MOTION FOR 12 SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND CORPORATE DISCLOSURE WIRELESS ADVOCATES, LLC, et 13 STATEMENT al., 14 Defendants. 15 This matter comes before the court sua sponte. On May 2, 2019, Plaintiff Tylt, 16 Inc. (“Tylt”) filed this lawsuit against Defendants Wireless Advocates, LLC (“Wireless 17 Advocates”) and Car Toys, Inc. (“Car Toys”) (collectively, “Defendants”). (Compl. 18 (Dkt. # 1).) On June 28, 2019, after Defendants filed their answer to the complaint, 19 Defendants filed a corporate disclosure statement. (Corp. Disc. (Dkt. # 13).) The court 20 has reviewed Tylt’s complaint and finds that Tylt failed to allege an adequate basis for 21 subject matter jurisdiction. In addition, the court has reviewed Defendants’ corporate 22 1 disclosure statement and finds that Defendants failed to comply with Western District of 2 Washington Local Civil Rule 7.1. The court therefore orders the parties, within seven

3 days of the date of this order, to serve and file submissions that includes the following 4 information: 5 Tylt asserts that the court’s subject matter jurisdiction is based on diversity of 6 citizenship under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. (Compl. ¶ 4.) For purposes of assessing diversity 7 jurisdiction, the court must consider the domicile of all members of a limited liability 8 company. Johnson v. Columbia Props. Anchorage, LP, 437 F.3d 894, 899 (9th Cir.

9 2006); see also Local Rules W.D. Wash. LCR 8(a) (“If plaintiff is asserting that this court 10 has jurisdiction based on diversity, the complaint must identify the citizenship of the 11 parties, and, if any of the parties is a limited liability corporation (LLC) . . . identify the 12 citizenship of the . . . members of those entities to establish the court’s jurisdiction.”). 13 Tylt alleges that Defendant Wireless Advocates, LLC (“Wireless Advocates”), is a

14 Washington limited liability company with its principal places of business in Seattle, 15 Washington. (Compl. ¶ 2.) But Tylt fails to allege the citizenship of any of Wireless 16 Advocates’ members. (See generally id.) Absent such allegations, the court cannot 17 determine if Tylt has properly invoked this court’s subject matter jurisdiction based on 18 the parties’ diversity of citizenship.1

20 1 The court notes that if any member of Wireless Advocates is itself a limited liability company, Tylt must provide information about the citizenship of the members of that limited liability company as well, which is determined in the same manner described above—namely, by 21 establishing the citizenship of each member. See Johnson, 437 F.3d at 899 (examining the citizenship of a limited partnership whose partners included limited liability companies by 22 looking to the citizenship of the members of those limited liability companies). This process 1 Western District of Washington Local Civil Rule 7.1 states that a party’s corporate 2 disclosure statement must identify “any member or owner in a joint venture or limited

3 liability corporation (LLC).” W.D. Wash. LCR 7.1(a)(2). Further, in diversity actions, a 4 party’s corporate disclosure statement “must also list . . . those states in which the party, 5 owners, partners, or members are citizens.” W.D. Wash. LCR 7.1(b). Defendants’ 6 corporate disclosure statement does not comply with either requirement for Wireless 7 Advocates. (See Corp. Disc.) Instead, Defendants merely state that Wireless Advocates 8 “has no parent corporation and no publicly held corporation owns 10% or more of its

9 membership interests.” (See id.) 10 Accordingly, the court ORDERS Tylt to show cause why this case should not be 11 dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. If Tylt fails to provide the court with the 12 information described above within seven days of the date of this order, the case will be 13 dismissed without prejudice. Further, because “[f]ederal courts must determine that they

14 have jurisdiction before proceeding to the merits,” Lance v. Coffman, 549 U.S. 437, 439 15 (2007) (citations omitted), the court STRIKES Car Toys’ pending motion for summary 16 judgment (see MSJ (Dkt. # 21)). If Tylt establishes that the court has subject matter 17 jurisdiction over this case, Car Toys may re-note its motion. The court also STRIKES 18 Defendants’ corporate disclosure statement (Dkt. # 13) and ORDERS Defendants to file a

19 corporate disclosure statement that complies with Western District of Washington Local 20 Civil Rule 7.1 within seven days of the date of this order. If Defendants fail to file an 21

continues until every layer of limited liability company membership has been reduced to the 22 citizenship of its individual members. 1 amended corporate disclosure statement that complies with this order, Defendants may be 2 subject to monetary sanctions for their failure to comply with the court’s local rules and

3 this order. 4 Dated this 18th day of March, 2020. 5 A 6 7 JAMES L. ROBART United States District Judge

8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22