CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Case No. CV 21-5390 FMO (AGRx) Date September 29, 2021 Title Rogelio Arreola v. American K-9 Detection Services CA Inc., et al.

Present: The Honorable Fernando M. Olguin, United States District Judge Gabriela Garcia None None Deputy Clerk Court Reporter / Recorder Tape No. Attorney Present for Plaintiff: Attorney Present for Defendants: None Present None Present Proceedings: (In Chambers) Order to Show Cause Re: Subject Matter Jurisdiction On or about May 28, 2021, plaintiff Rogelio Arreola (“plaintiff”) filed a Complaint against American K-9 Detection Services CA, Inc. (“AMK-9 Inc.”), Constellis Integrated Risk Management Services, Inc. (“Constellis Integrated”), and CACI, Inc. (See Dkt. 1, Notice of Removal (“NOR”) at ¶ 1). On July 2, 2021, defendants AMK-9, Inc. and Constellis Integrated removed the case to federal court, claiming that this court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a).1 (See id. at ¶ 10). On August 11, 2021, plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) against Constellis Integrated as well as newly named defendants American K-9 Detection Services, LLC (“AMK-9, LLC”) and Constellis, LLC (“Constellis, LLC”) (collectively, “defendants”). (See Dkt. 14, FAC at ¶¶ 5-10). When federal subject matter jurisdiction is predicated on diversity of citizenship pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a), complete diversity must exist between the opposing parties.2 See Caterpillar Inc. v. Lewis, 519 U.S. 61, 68, 117 S.Ct. 467, 472 (1996) (stating that the diversity jurisdiction statute “applies only to cases in which the citizenship of each plaintiff is diverse from the citizenship of each defendant”). “[T]he party seeking to invoke the district court’s diversity jurisdiction always bears the burden of both pleading and proving diversity 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)). 1 According to the NOR, plaintiff did not properly serve CACI, Inc. (See Dkt. 1, NOR at ¶ 11). In any event, plaintiff did not name CACI, Inc. as a defendant in its amended complaint filed after removal. (See, generally, Dkt. 14, First Amended Complaint). 2 The court disregards “the citizenship of defendants sued under fictitious names” in assessing removal based on diversity of citizenship. 28 U.S.C.A. § 144. However, if a Doe

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Case No. CV 21-5390 FMO (AGRx) Date September 29, 2021 Title Rogelio Arreola v. American K-9 Detection Services CA Inc., et al. To properly plead diversity jurisdiction “with respect to a limited liability company, the citizenship of all its members must be pled.” NewGen, 840 F.3d at 611. A limited liability company (“LLC”) “is a citizen of every state of which its owners/members are citizens.” Johnson v. Columbia Props. Anchorage, LP, 437 F.3d 894, 899 (9th Cir. 2006); see also Carden v. Arkoma Assocs., 494 U.S. 185, 195-96, 110 S.Ct. 1015, 1021 (1990) (“We adhere to our oft-repeated rule that diversity jurisdiction in a suit by or against the entity depends on the citizenship of all the members[.]”) (internal quotation marks omitted). Here, plaintiff’s FAC alleges that AMK-9, LLC “is a Delaware limited liability company which does business throughout the United States, with its relevant place of business located” in Hawthorne, California. (Dkt. 14, FAC at ¶ 5). Plaintiff similarly alleges that Constellis, LLC “is a Virginia Limited Liability Company which does business throughout the United States, with its relevant business located” in Hawthorne, California. (Id. at ¶ 6). Because plaintiff did not explain who the members of the LLCs are and their state of citizenship, (see, generally, id. at ¶¶ 5-6), the court cannot determine whether it has subject matter jurisdiction.3 Based on the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED that no later than October 6, 2021, defendants American K-9 Detection Services, LLC and Constellis, LLC shall provide declarations, under penalty of perjury, and supporting evidence, establishing the citizenship and residence of each of their partners, members, and owners. The Order to Show Cause will stand submitted upon the filing written response that addresses the issues raised in this Order on or before the date indicated above. Failure to respond to this order to show cause by the deadline set forth above shall be deemed as consent to the remand of this action to Los Angeles Superior Court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Initials of Preparer gga 3 Plaintiff’s FAC also failed to properly allege the citizenship of Constellis Integrated. (See Dkt. 14, FAC at ¶ 7) (alleging that Constellis Integrated “is a Delaware corporation which