Ved v. Global Fitness Ventures, LLC
This text of Ved v. Global Fitness Ventures, LLC (Ved v. Global Fitness Ventures, LLC) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, N.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 DIVYANG VED, Case No. 25-cv-03286-HSG
8 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 9 v.
10 GLOBAL FITNESS VENTURES, LLC, 11 Defendant.
12 13 Having reviewed the operative complaint, Dkt. No. 25 (“SAC”), and the motion to dismiss, 14 Dkt. No. 26, the Court cannot confirm that it has subject matter jurisdiction over this matter. 15 Plaintiff has alleged that the Court has diversity jurisdiction because “the amount in controversy 16 exceeds $75,000 and is between citizens of different states.” SAC at 2 (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1332).1 17 But Plaintiff’s assertion of diversity jurisdiction is not sufficiently supported by the allegations in 18 the SAC. See Rainero v. Archon Corp., 844 F.3d 832, 840 (9th Cir. 2016) (“The party seeking to 19 invoke the district court’s diversity jurisdiction always bears the burden of both pleading and 20 proving diversity jurisdiction.”) (quotation omitted). 21 Defendant Global Fitness Ventures, LLC, is a limited liability corporation. See SAC at 2. 22 As such, it is a citizen of every state in which its individual members are citizens. See Johnson v. 23 Columbia Props. Anchorage, LP, 437 F.3d 894, 899 (9th Cir. 2006). But Plaintiff has not alleged 24 the citizenship of the LLC’s members. Similarly, Defendant Spain Fitness Ventures, LP, as a 25 limited partnership, is a citizen of every state in which the individual partners are citizens. See id. 26 Again, Plaintiff has not alleged the citizenship of these partners. 27 1 The Court therefore ORDERS Plaintiff to SHOW CAUSE why the case should not be 2 || dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Plaintiff shall file a brief of no more than four 3 pages by August 25, 2025. Because jurisdiction is a threshold issue, the Court takes the pending 4 motion to dismiss, Dkt. No. 26, under submission, and VACATES the hearing and initial case 5 management conference currently scheduled for 2:00 p.m. on August 21, 2025. 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 || Dated: 8/13/2025
HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR. 9 United States District Judge 10 11 12
© 15 16
= 17
Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Ved v. Global Fitness Ventures, LLC, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ved-v-global-fitness-ventures-llc-cand-2025.