Unimax Communications LLC v. T-Mobile USA Inc

Opinion

1 2 3

4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 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