UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL

Case No. CV 25-11597-DMG (RAOx) Date December 15, 2025

Title Jehan Semper v. Whole Foods Market Inc, et al. Page 1 of 2

Present: The Honorable DOLLY M. GEE, CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

DEREK DAVIS NOT REPORTED

Deputy Clerk Court Reporter

Attorneys Present for Plaintiff(s) Attorneys Present for Defendant(s) None Present None Present

Proceedings: IN CHAMBERS—ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THIS ACTION

SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER

JURISDICTION

On November 30, 2025, pro se1 Plaintiff Jehan Semper filed a Complaint against Defendants Whole Foods Market, Inc., Whole Foods Market LLC, Whole Foods Market California, Inc., Whole Foods, Mrs. Gooch’s Natural Food Markets Inc. [Doc. # 1 (“Compl.”).] Plaintiff alleges a number of state tort claims, including “personal injury, bodily harm, battery, intentional harm, intentional tort, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and negligence,” and “harassment, discrimination and retaliation” in violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act, Cal. Civ. Code § 51. Compl. at 3–6.2 Plaintiff appears to invoke diversity jurisdiction. Id. at 2.

Under 28 U.S.C. section 1332(a)(1), the Court has original jurisdiction over a civil action where “the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000” and there is complete diversity of citizenship between the parties. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1). “The party seeking to invoke the district court’s diversity jurisdiction always bears the burden of both pleading and proving diversity jurisdiction.” NewGen, LLC v. Safe Cig, LLC 840 F.3d 606, 613–14 (9th Cir. 2016).

To establish diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1), there must be “complete diversity between the parties—each defendant must be a citizen of a different state from each plaintiff.” Diaz v. Davis (In re Digimarc Corp. Derivative Litig.), 549 F.3d 1223, 1234 (9th Cir. 2008). Limited liability companies are citizens of every state or country in which their owners,

1 All parties in court, including those proceeding pro se, i.e., without legal representation, are required to comply with Court orders, the Local Rules, and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See C.D. Cal. L.R. 83-2.2.3. Pro se litigants often face special challenges in federal court. Public Counsel runs a free Federal Pro Se Clinic where pro se litigants can get information and guidance. The Clinic is located at the Roybal Federal Building and Courthouse, 255 East Temple Street, Suite 170, Los Angeles, CA 90012. Pro se litigants must call and make an appointment at (213) 385-2977, ext. 270 or submit an online application to request services at https://publiccounsel.org/services/federal-court/application-for-services/.

2 All page citations herein refer to the page numbers inserted by the CM/ECF system.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL

Case No. CV 25-11597-DMG (RAOx) Date December 15, 2025

Title Jehan Semper v. Whole Foods Market Inc, et al. Page 2 of 2

members, or partners are citizens. See Johnson v. Columbia Props. Advantage, LP, 437 F.3d 894, 899 (9th Cir. 2006). A corporation is a citizen of both the state in which it has been incorporated and the state where it has its principal place of business. Breitman v. May Co. California, 37 F.3d 562, 564 (9th Cir. 1994) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)).

Plaintiff has alleged insufficient facts for the Court to determine whether the parties are diverse. Plaintiff alleges she resides in Los Angeles County, California. Compl. at 2. She alleges, generally, all Defendants are “[d]omiciled in Travis County, TX” and Defendant Mrs. Gooch’s Natural Food Markets, Inc.’s principal place of business is in Texas. Id. Plaintiff must allege the citizenship of all owners, members, and partners of Defendant Whole Foods Market LLC, and the state of incorporation and principal place of business of all other Defendants (Whole Foods Market, Inc., Whole Foods Market California, Inc., Whole Foods, Mrs. Gooch’s Natural Food Markets Inc). Without these allegations, the Court cannot assess if the parties’ citizenship is diverse.

Plaintiff is therefore ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE why this action should not be dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Plaintiff shall file her response by no later than February 13, 2026. Defendants may file their response, if any, by February 27. 2026. Failure to file a timely satisfactory response will result in the dismissal of this action for lack of jurisdiction.

IT IS SO ORDERED.