United Financial Casualty Company v. Bratcher

Opinion

1 2 3 6 7 UNITED FINANCIAL CASUALTY Case No. 22-cv-03624-MMC COMPANY, Plaintiff, AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR LACK v. JURISDICTION; AFFORDING 10 PLAINTIFF LEAVE TO AMEND; MATTHEW BRATCHER, et al., DENYING AS MOOT DEFENDANTS 11 JOHN HERN AND LISA KRYTER'S Defendants. MOTION TO DISMISS 12 13 Before the Court is plaintiff United Financial Casualty Company's First Amended 14 Complaint ("FAC"), filed October 21, 2022.1 Having read and considered the FAC, the 15 Court, for the reasons stated below, will dismiss the FAC for lack of subject matter 16 jurisdiction, with leave to amend. 17 In its Complaint, plaintiff asserts against four individuals and one entity (see FAC 18 ¶¶ 4-8) two state law claims, titled, respectively, "Declaratory Relief on Duty to Indemnify" 19 and "Declaratory Relief on Duty to Defend" (see FAC at 8:17-19, 9:22-24). Plaintiff 20 alleges the Court has diversity jurisdiction over its claims. (See FAC ¶ 1). 21 A district court has diversity jurisdiction only if "the matter in controversy exceeds 22 the sum and value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs," see 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a), 23 and each defendant's citizenship is diverse from that of the plaintiff, see id. 24 Here, plaintiff sufficiently alleges the requisite amount in controversy (see FAC 25 ¶ 71-72 (alleging plaintiffs in underlying personal injury action "seek[ ] to recover more 26

27 1 On November 8, 2022, the above-titled action was reassigned to the 1 than $75,000 in damages")), sufficiently alleges it is a citizen of Ohio (see FAC { 3), and 2 sufficiently alleges that each of the four individual defendants is a citizen of California 3 (see FAC J 4-5, 7-8). Plaintiff has not, however, alleged facts sufficient to establish the 4 citizenship of the entity defendant, specifically, Ventura System, LLC ("Ventura"). See 5 Newman-Green, Inc. v. Alfonso-Larrain, 490 U.S. 826, 829 (1989) (holding plaintiff must 6 meet diversity requirement “for each defendant or face dismissal”). 7 According to plaintiff, Ventura "is a limited liability company organized under the 8 laws of California" and whose "principal place of business is in California." (See FAC 9 q 6.) Plaintiff fails, however, to identify the owners and/or members of Ventura, let alone 10 the states of which each owner and/or member is a citizen. See Johnson v. Columbia 11 Properties Anchorage, LP, 437 F.3d 894, 899 (9th Cir. 2006) (holding "an LLC is a citizen 12 of every state of which its owners/members are citizens"). In the absence of such 5 13 allegations, the complaint is deficient. See, e.g., Lindley Contours LLC v. AABB Fitness 14 Holdings, Inc., 414 Fed Appx. 62, 64 (9th Cir. 2011) (holding district court lacked 8 15 || jurisdiction over action in which two parties were LLCs and party seeking to establish é 16 || jurisdiction "fail[ed] to state the citizenship of the . .. members of [each LLC]"). G 17 Accordingly, the FAC is hereby DISMISSED with leave to amend. If plaintiff 5 18 wishes to pursue its claims in federal court, plaintiff shall file, no later than December 2, 19 2022, a Second Amended Complaint, in which plaintiff must allege facts sufficient to 20 support a finding that the Court has jurisdiction over the instant action. 21 Lastly, defendants John Hern and Lisa Kryter’s motion to dismiss, filed October 7, 22 2022, is, in light of the dismissal of the FAC, hereby DENIED as moot. 24 25 Dated: November 9, 2022 (ein Md, Chater MAXINE M. CHESNEY 26 Unitéd States District Judge 27 28