CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

Case No. 8:23-cv-02329-FWS-JDE Date: May 14, 2024 Title: Ameris Bank v. Levitt Medical Aesthetics LLC et al.

Present: HONORABLE FRED W. SLAUGHTER, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Melissa H. Kunig N/A Deputy Clerk Court Reporter

Attorneys Present for Plaintiff: Attorneys Present for Defendant:

Not Present Not Present

PROCEEDINGS: ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE SUBJECT MATTER

JURISDICTION

“Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, possessing only that power authorized by Constitution and statute.” Gunn v. Minton, 568 U.S. 251, 257 (1994) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). This threshold requirement “‘spring[s] from the nature and limits of the judicial power of the United States’ and is ‘inflexible and without exception.’” Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83, 94-95 (1998) (quoting Mansfield, C. & L.M. Ry. Co. v. Swan, 111 U.S. 379, 382 (1884)). Thus, district courts “have an independent obligation to determine whether subject-matter jurisdiction exists, even in the absence of a challenge from any party.” Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 514 (2006). “If the court determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). “The basic statutory grants of federal-court subject-matter jurisdiction are contained in 28 U.S.C. § 1331, which provides for ‘[f]ederal-question’ jurisdiction, and § 1332, which provides for ‘[d]iversity of citizenship’ jurisdiction.” Arbaugh, 546 U.S. at 501. As relevant here, diversity jurisdiction requires complete diversity between the parties and an amount in controversy greater than $75,000. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a); see also Strawbridge v. Curtiss, 7 U.S. (3 Cranch) 267, 267 (1806); Owen Equip. & Erection Co. v. Kroger, 437 U.S. 365, 373 (1978) (“[D]iversity jurisdiction does not exist unless each defendant is a citizen of a different State from each plaintiff.”); Matheson v. Progressive Specialty Ins. Co., 319 F.3d 1089, 1090 (9th Cir. 2003) (“Jurisdiction founded on 28 U.S.C. § 1332 requires that the parties be in complete

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

Case No. 8:23-cv-02329-FWS-JDE Date: May 14, 2024 Title: Ameris Bank v. Levitt Medical Aesthetics LLC et al.

diversity and the amount in controversy exceed $75,000.”); Lee v. Am. Nat. Ins. Co., 260 F.3d 997, 1004 (9th Cir. 2001) (“The diversity jurisdiction statute, as construed for nearly 200 years, requires that to bring a diversity case in federal court against multiple defendants, each plaintiff must be diverse from each defendant.”). If a party is a partnership, limited liability company or other unincorporated association, the court must consider the citizenship of each of the partners, including limited partners, or members, in evaluating jurisdiction. Carden v. Arkoma Assocs., 494 U.S. 185, 195-96 (1990); Johnson, 437 F.3d at 899. If a party is a corporation, the complaint must allege both its state(s) of incorporation and principal place of business. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c); Harris v. Rand, 682 F.3d 846, 850 (9th Cir. 2012). If a party is a natural person, the complaint must allege their state of domicile, which is their permanent home, where they reside with the intention to remain or to which they intend to return. Ehrman v. Cox Commc’ns, Inc., 932 F.3d 1223, 1227 (9th Cir. 2019). In this case, Plaintiff Ameris Bank (“Plaintiff”) filed a Complaint against Defendants Levitt Medical Aesthetics LLC (“Defendant Levitt Medical”) and Scott Paul Levitt (“Defendant Levitt”) on December 8, 2023. (See generally Dkt. 1.) On March 8, 2024, Plaintiff field a Motion for Default Judgment, (see Dkt. 14), supported by a declaration by Plaintiff’s attorney, Jared T. Densen, (see Dkt. 14-2 (“Densen Decl.”)). “Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a), a pleading must contain ‘a short and plain statement of the grounds for the court’s jurisdiction, unless the court already has jurisdiction, and the claim needs no new jurisdictional support.’” Harris, 682 F.3d at 850 (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)). Plaintiff alleges that the court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). (Dkt. 1 ¶ 8.) The court finds Plaintiff has failed to allege facts demonstrating complete diversity as required for diversity jurisdiction. With respect to the parties’ citizenship, the Complaint alleges that: (1) Plaintiff is a Georgia state-charted banking corporation; (2) Defendant Levitt Medical is an Oregon limited liability company doing business in County of Linn, Oregon; and (3) Defendant Levitt is an individual residing in County of Linn, Oregon. (See Dkt. 1 ¶¶ 1-3.) Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment further alleges that “[Defendant] Levitt Medical is not located in California or Georgia, nor are any of its shareholders or members, including defendant Levitt.” (See Dkt. 14 at 3.) However, neither the Complaint nor the Motion for

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

Case No. 8:23-cv-02329-FWS-JDE Date: May 14, 2024 Title: Ameris Bank v. Levitt Medical Aesthetics LLC et al.

Default Judgment adequately allege the citizenships of the members of Defendant Levitt Medical. (See generally Dkts 1, 14.) Because the citizenship of all members of a limited liability company must be alleged, the court concludes Plaintiff has not sufficiently alleged complete diversity between the parties as required for subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. NewGen, LLC v. Safe Cig, LLC, 840 F.3d 606, 611 (9th Cir. 2016) Accordingly, Plaintiff is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE in writing by May 21, 2024, why this case should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994) (“It is to be presumed that a cause lies outside this limited jurisdiction, and the burden of establishing the contrary rests upon the party asserting jurisdiction.”) (citations omitted); Kanter v. Warner-Lambert Co., 265 F.3d 853, 857 (9th Cir. 2001) (“Absent unusual circumstances, a party seeking to invoke diversity jurisdiction should be able to allege affirmatively the actual citizenship of the relevant parties.”) (citations omitted). Failure to demonstrate a basis for the court’s subject matter jurisdiction or comply with court orders will result in dismissal. See Arbaugh, 546 U.S. at 514 (“The objection that a federal court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction . . . may be raised by a party, or by a court on its own initiative, at any stage in the litigation, even after trial and the entry of judgment.”); Scholastic Ent., 336 F.3d at 985 (“While a party is entitled to notice and an opportunity to respond when a court contemplates dismissing a claim on the merits . . . it is not so when the dismissal is for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.”); California Diversified Promotions, Inc, v. Musick, 505 F.2d 278, 280 (9th Cir. 1974) (“It has long been held that a judge can dismiss sua sponte for lack of jurisdiction.”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3) (“If the court determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action.”); Link v. Wabash R.R., 370 U.S. 626, 629 (1962) (“The authority of a federal trial court to dismiss a plaintiff’s action with prejudice because of his failure to prosecute cannot seriously be doubted.”); Hells Canyon Pres. Council v. U.S. Forest Serv., 403 F.3d 693, 699 (9th Cir. 2005) (“[C]ourts may dismiss under Rule 41(b) sua sponte, at least under certain circumstances.”); Ash v. Cvetkov, 739 F.2d 493, 496 (9th Cir. 1984) (“It is within the inherent power of the court to sua sponte dismiss a case for lack of prosecution.”).

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

Case No. 8:23-cv-02329-FWS-JDE Date: May 14, 2024 Title: Ameris Bank v. Levitt Medical Aesthetics LLC et al.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Initials of Deputy Clerk: mku