Unimax Communications LLC v. T-Mobile USA Inc

W.D. Washington

Unimax Communications LLC v. T-Mobile USA Inc

DecidedMarch 8, 2024

Docket2:23-cv-01830

StatusUnknown

This text of Unimax Communications LLC v. T-Mobile USA Inc (Unimax Communications LLC v. T-Mobile USA Inc) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. Washington primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Unimax Communications LLC v. T-Mobile USA Inc, (W.D. Wash. 2024).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3

4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 7 UNIMAX COMMUNICATIONS LLC, CASE NO. C23-01830-KKE 8

Plaintiff, ORDER TO FILE SUPPLEMENTAL 9 v. DISCLOSURE STATEMENT

10 T-MOBILE USA INC,

11 Defendant.

12 This matter comes before the Court sua sponte. Plaintiff Unimax Communications, LLC, 13 (“Unimax”) commenced this action, asserting this Court has subject matter jurisdiction on the basis 14 of diversity of citizenship between the parties. Dkt. No. 1 ¶ 2.1. 15 The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require that in an action where jurisdiction is based 16 on diversity under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a), a party must file a disclosure statement that identifies the 17 citizenship of every individual or entity whose citizenship is attributed to that party. Fed. R. Civ. 18 P. 7.1(a)(2)(A). Each party must file a disclosure statement with that party’s “first appearance, 19 pleading, petition, motion, response, or other request addressed to the court[.]” Fed. R. Civ. P. 20 7.1(b)(1). 21 As an LLC, Unimax “is a citizen of every state of which its owners/members are citizens.” 22 Johnson v. Columbia Props. Anchorage, LP, 437 F.3d 894, 899 (9th Cir. 2006). Unimax filed a 23 disclosure statement, however the statement is insufficient because it does not identify Unimax’s 24 1 owners/members or the citizenship of those owners/members. See Dkt. No. 2. Rather, the 2 disclosure statement filed by Unimax addresses only the requirements in Rule 7.1(a)(1) pertaining 3 to publicly held corporations. Id.

4 For the foregoing reasons, the Court ORDERS Unimax to file, no later than March 15, 5 2024, a supplemental disclosure statement that identifies the name and citizenship of each 6 owner/member of Unimax in compliance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 7.1(a)(2). 7 Dated this 8th day of March, 2024. 8 A 9 Kymberly K. Evanson 10 United States District Judge

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 2 3

4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 7 UNIMAX COMMUNICATIONS LLC, CASE NO. C23-01830-KKE 8

Plaintiff, ORDER TO FILE SUPPLEMENTAL 9 v. DISCLOSURE STATEMENT

10 T-MOBILE USA INC,

11 Defendant.

12 This matter comes before the Court sua sponte. Plaintiff Unimax Communications, LLC, 13 (“Unimax”) commenced this action, asserting this Court has subject matter jurisdiction on the basis 14 of diversity of citizenship between the parties. Dkt. No. 1 ¶ 2.1. 15 The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require that in an action where jurisdiction is based 16 on diversity under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a), a party must file a disclosure statement that identifies the 17 citizenship of every individual or entity whose citizenship is attributed to that party. Fed. R. Civ. 18 P. 7.1(a)(2)(A). Each party must file a disclosure statement with that party’s “first appearance, 19 pleading, petition, motion, response, or other request addressed to the court[.]” Fed. R. Civ. P. 20 7.1(b)(1). 21 As an LLC, Unimax “is a citizen of every state of which its owners/members are citizens.” 22 Johnson v. Columbia Props. Anchorage, LP, 437 F.3d 894, 899 (9th Cir. 2006). Unimax filed a 23 disclosure statement, however the statement is insufficient because it does not identify Unimax’s 24 1 owners/members or the citizenship of those owners/members. See Dkt. No. 2. Rather, the 2 disclosure statement filed by Unimax addresses only the requirements in Rule 7.1(a)(1) pertaining 3 to publicly held corporations. Id.

4 For the foregoing reasons, the Court ORDERS Unimax to file, no later than March 15, 5 2024, a supplemental disclosure statement that identifies the name and citizenship of each 6 owner/member of Unimax in compliance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 7.1(a)(2). 7 Dated this 8th day of March, 2024. 8 A 9 Kymberly K. Evanson 10 United States District Judge

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Unimax Communications LLC v. T-Mobile USA Inc, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/unimax-communications-llc-v-t-mobile-usa-inc-wawd-2024.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack