SuperTech, Inc. v. My Choice Software, LLC,, No. 1:2023cv00002 - Document 11 (D. N. Mar. I. 2023)
Court Description: DECISION and Order Sua Sponte Dismissing Complaint for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction. Signed by Chief Judge Ramona V. Manglona on 03/23/2023. (NBS)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
SuperTech, Inc. v. My Choice Software, LLC, Doc. 11 Case 1:23-cv-00002 Document 11 Filed 03/23/23 Page 1 of 3 FILED Clerk District Court 1 2 3 4 SUPERTECH, INC. 5 Plaintiff, 6 v. 7 8 MAR 23 2023 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT for the Northern Mariana Islands FOR THE NORTHERN MARIANA ISLANDS By________________________ (Deputy Clerk) Case No. 1:23-cv-00002 DECISION AND ORDER SUA SPONTE DISMISSING COMPLAINT FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION MY CHOICE SOFTWARE, LLC, Defendant. 9 10 11 Plaintiff Supertech, Inc. filed a complaint against Defendant My Choice Software, LLC asserting 12 diversity jurisdiction and alleging fraud, breach of contract, promissory estoppel, and unjust enrichment. 13 (Compl. 1, 10, 12-13; ECF No. 1.) Defendant filed a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, 14 improper venue, and failure to state a claim, or to alternatively, transfer the case. (Mot. Dismiss, ECF No. 15 6.) Subsequently, the parties filed a stipulation to modify the briefing schedule and hearing date of the 16 17 motion to dismiss. (Stip., ECF No. 10.) However, a review of the complaint reveals that subject matter 18 jurisdiction has not been properly pleaded; therefore, the Court issues this decision and order sua sponte 19 dismissing the complaint for lack of jurisdiction and granting Plaintiff leave to amend its complaint. 20 21 22 I. BACKGROUND The facts as alleged in the complaint, in relevant part, are as follows. Plaintiff is a Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (“CNMI”) corporation with its principal place of business in the CNMI. 23 24 25 26 (Compl. ¶ 3.) Defendant is a California limited liability company with its principal place of business in California. (Id. ¶ 4.) II. LEGAL STANDARD 27 Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction empowered to hear only those cases authorized by the 28 Constitution or by Congress. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). A court 1 Dockets.Justia.com Case 1:23-cv-00002 Document 11 Filed 03/23/23 Page 2 of 3 1 must dismiss a case if it determines that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). 2 Federal courts have diversity jurisdiction over “all civil actions where the matter in controversy exceeds 3 the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and is between-- (1) citizens of different States; 4 5 (2) citizens of a State and citizens or subjects of a foreign state . . . ; (3) citizens of different States and in which citizens or subjects of a foreign state are additional parties[.]” 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). “The party seeking to invoke 6 the district court’s diversity jurisdiction always bears the burden of both pleading and proving diversity 7 8 9 jurisdiction.” Rainero v. Archon Corp., 844 F.3d 832, 840 (9th Cir. 2016) (quoting NewGen, LLC v. Safe Cig, LLC, 840 F.3d 606, 613–14 (9th Cir. 2016)). “In cases where entities rather than individuals are litigants, 10 diversity jurisdiction depends on the form of the entity.” Johnson v. Columbia Props. Anchorage, LP, 437 F.3d 11 894, 899 (9th Cir. 2006). For example, a corporation is a citizen of the state of incorporation and the state where 12 its principal place of business is located. Id. In contrast, LLCs are “citizens of every state of which its 13 owners/members are citizens.” Id. “[W]here an LLC is a member of another LLC, the citizenship of the ‘sub- 14 member’ LLC is likewise defined by the citizenships of its own members.” 19th Capital Grp., Inc. v. 3 GGG’s 15 Truck Lines, Inc., No. CV 18-2493 PA (RAOx), 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 226595, at *4, 2018 WL 6219886 16 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 3, 2018) (citations omitted). For individuals, citizenship in a state requires United States 17 18 19 citizenship and is determined by domicile. Kanter v. Warner-Lambert Co., 265 F.3d 853, 857 (9th Cir. 2001). III. DISCUSSION 20 In its complaint, Plaintiff asserts diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332. (Compl. ¶ 1.) 21 However, the Court concludes it does not have diversity jurisdiction based on the complaint as presently 22 alleged. This Court has previously recognized its lack of diversity jurisdiction when plaintiffs failed to 23 24 adequately plead the citizenship of businesses. See Pac. Rim Land Dev., LLC v. Imperial Pac. Int’l (CNMI), LLC, No. 19-CV-00016, 2019 WL 9518261, at *3-4 (D. N. Mar. I. Dec. 4, 2019) (dismissing complaint 25 26 27 28 for failure to adequately plead diversity jurisdiction); Saipan Dev., LLC v. Commonwealth Utilities Corp., No. 1:13-CV-00024, 2014 WL 12694601, at *2 (D. N. Mar. I. June 24, 2014) (noting the Court’s inability to exercise diversity jurisdiction when LLC party’s citizenship was not adequately plead); Order Sua 2 Case 1:23-cv-00002 Document 11 Filed 03/23/23 Page 3 of 3 1 Sponte Dismissing Complaint with Leave to Amend; and Denying Motion for Service by Publication as 2 Moot, Bridge Capital, LLC v. Wilson, No. 1:22-cv-00012, (D. N. Mar. I. Feb. 1, 2023), ECF No. 3. 3 4 Here, Plaintiff has failed to sufficiently plead the citizenship of Defendant My Choice Software, LLC, which requires dismissal of its complaint. See Thermax Inc. v. Coachillin Energy Co., LLC, No. 5 6 7 EDCV 20-1984 DSF (KKx), 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 186266, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 7, 2020) (ordering the plaintiff to file an amended complaint correcting jurisdictional allegations as it failed to properly plead the 8 citizenship of a LLC party). Because Defendant is an LLC, Plaintiff must identify Defendant’s members and 9 their citizenships. Since the complaint lacks these allegations, Plaintiff has not met its burden to establish 10 diversity jurisdiction. See Lindley Countours, LLC v. AABB Fitness Holdings, Inc., 414 Fed. App’x 62, 64-65 11 (9th Cir. 2011) (holding that appellees failed to establish complete diversity because while they identified the 12 13 partners that comprised one defendant limited partnership, they “d[id] not identify of what state [those partners] are a citizen nor whether they are comprised of another layer of partnerships”). 14 IV. CONCLUSION 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Because Plaintiff has not adequately plead diversity jurisdiction, the Court sua sponte DISMISSES the complaint, but grants Plaintiff leave to amend its complaint to correct the deficiencies. Plaintiff’s amended complaint is due fourteen days from issuance of this order. As such, the motion to dismiss (ECF No. 6) is mooted and the hearing currently set for April 20, 2023 is VACATED. Because the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction as presently alleged, it need not consider Defendant’s arguments raised in its motion to dismiss. For this reason, the Court expresses no opinion on the merits of those arguments. Finally, the pending stipulation (ECF No. 10) is also mooted. IT IS SO ORDERED this 23rd day of March, 2023. 24 25 26 ____________________________________ RAMONA V. MANGLONA Chief Judge 27 28 3
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
