1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 IP SOLUTIONS, INC., No. 1:21-cv-01391-NONE-SKO 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER DISCHARGING ORDER TO SHOW

CAUSE AND REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO

14 CENTRAL SIERRA HOLDINGS, INC., FILE AN AMENDED COMPLAINT TO

INCLUDE APPROPRIATE

15 Defendant. JURISDICTIONAL ALLEGATIONS 16 (Doc. No. 4) 17 (Fourteen-Day Deadline) 18

19 On September 16, 2021, plaintiff IP Solutions, Inc. commenced this action by filing a 20 complaint against defendant Central Sierra Holdings, Inc. and invoked the court’s diversity 21 jurisdiction. (Doc. No. 1.) On September 23, 2021, the court ordered plaintiff to show cause why 22 the complaint should not be dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction due to insufficient 23 allegations of diversity. (Doc. No. 4.) As noted in the order to show cause, the complaint alleges 24 that plaintiff is an Ohio corporation “located in Perrysburg, Ohio,” that defendant is “a citizen of 25 California,” and that defendant is “located in Sonora, California.” (Doc. No. 1 ¶¶ 2, 4–5.) Thus, 26 even though all parties to this action are corporations, plaintiff did not allege the state of 27 incorporation and the principal place of business for each party. Also as noted in the order to 28 show cause, such allegations are necessary. (Doc. No. 4 (citing sources).) 1 On October 6, 2021, plaintiff filed a response to the order to show cause. (Doc. No. 5.) 2 | The response provides additional information concerning the citizenship of the parties, states that 3 | the amount in controversy is greater than $75,000, and argues that the court has subject-matter 4 | jurisdiction based on the additional information provided. Ud.) However, the information 5 | plaintiff provides in the declaration is not reflected in the complaint. See Kanter v. Warner- 6 | Lambert Co., 265 F.3d 853, 857-58 (9th Cir. 2001) (“Absent unusual circumstances, a party 7 | seeking to invoke diversity jurisdiction should be able to allege affirmatively the actual 8 || citizenship of the relevant parties. .. . In this case, neither Plaintiffs’ complaint nor Pfizer’s notice 9 | of removal made any allegation regarding Plaintiffs’ state citizenship. Since the party asserting 10 | diversity jurisdiction bears the burden of proof, Pfizer’s failure to specify Plaintiffs’ state 11 | citizenship was fatal to Defendants’ assertion of diversity jurisdiction.”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a) (“A 12 | pleading that states a claim for relief must contain: (1) a short and plain statement of the grounds 13 | for the court’s jurisdiction ....” (paragraph break omitted)); 5B Arthur R. Miller & Benjamin 14 || Spencer, Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ. § 1350 (3d ed.) (“Tf the allegations [concerning subject-matter 15 | jurisdiction] are not sufficient, however, the district judge has at least two possible courses of 16 | action. When the pleader’s affidavits or other evidence show either that the court actually has 17 | subject matter jurisdiction over the case or that the nonmoving party might be able to amend to 18 | allege jurisdiction, the district court may deny the motion [to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1), which 19 | may be brought sua sponte, and direct the pleader to amend the pleading or it may dismiss with 20 | leave to amend within a prescribed period of time.”’). 21 Accordingly, 22 1. The order to show cause (Doc. No. 4) is DISCHARGED; and 23 2. Plaintiff is directed to file an amended complaint within fourteen days of the date of 24 this order in accordance with the above instructions. 25 | IT IS SO ORDERED. me □ 26 Li fa £5 Dated: _ October 20, 2021 te T Se 27 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 28