Summary
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California issued an order to show cause regarding subject matter jurisdiction in an action involving quantum meruit, open book account, and declaratory relief claims. The court found that the complaint did not adequately establish federal-question jurisdiction or diversity jurisdiction because the defendant LLC's members' citizenship was not alleged, and ordered the plaintiff to show cause, amend the complaint, or voluntarily dismiss within fourteen days.
Holdings
- The complaint does not adequately plead federal-question jurisdiction because the Declaratory Judgment Act does not independently confer federal-question jurisdiction and the remaining claims arise under state law.
- The complaint does not adequately plead diversity jurisdiction because it fails to allege the citizenship of each member or owner of the defendant limited liability company.
- The court may examine subject matter jurisdiction sua sponte at any time, and it must dismiss the action if jurisdiction is lacking; therefore, Plaintiff must establish jurisdiction before the court can proceed on the default judgment motion.
Questions Presented
- Whether the complaint adequately pleaded federal-question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.
- Whether the complaint adequately pleaded complete diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332.
- Whether the court should require Plaintiff to establish subject matter jurisdiction before considering the motion for default judgment.
Disposition
other
Cases Cited (13)
- Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994)(followed)
- Romero v. Securus Techs., Inc., 216 F. Supp. 3d 1078, 1085 (S.D. Cal. 2016)(followed)
- Scholastic Ent., Inc. v. Fox Ent. Grp., Inc., 336 F.3d 982, 985 (9th Cir. 2003)(followed)
- Valdez v. Allstate Ins. Co., 372 F.3d 1115, 1116 (9th Cir. 2004)(followed)
- Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987)(followed)
- City of Oakland v. BP PLC, 969 F.3d 895, 903 (9th Cir. 2020)(followed)
- Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Liberatore, 408 F.3d 1158, 1161 (9th Cir. 2005)(followed)
- Stearns v. Stearns, Case No. C22-1579-RSL, 2022 WL 17832259, at *1 (W.D. Wash. Dec. 21, 2022)(followed)
- Caterpillar Inc. v. Lewis, 519 U.S. 61, 68 (1996)(followed)
- Harris v. Rand, 682 F.3d 846, 850 (9th Cir. 2012)(followed)
Showing top 10 of 13.
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…