All American Healthcare Services, Inc. v. Shlomo Rechnitz ( 2024 )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL Case No. 2:24-cv-06382-GW-SK Date: August 12, 2024 Title: All American Healthcare Services, Inc. v. Shlomo Rechnitz, et al. Present: Honorable JOSEPHINE L. STATON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Charles A. Rojas N/A Deputy Clerk Court Reporter Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs: Attorneys Present for Defendant: Not Present Not Present PROCEEDINGS: (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THIS CASE SHOULD NOT BE REMANDED TO STATE COURT On July 29, 2024, Plaintiff All American Healthcare Services, Inc. initiated this action against several Defendants. (See Compl., Doc. 1.) Plaintiff invokes the Court’s diversity jurisdiction, alleging that it is a citizen of New Jersey and that all seventeen Defendants are citizens of California. (Id. ¶¶ 1–18.) “Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction.” Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). As the party invoking federal jurisdiction, Plaintiff has the burden of establishing that this case is within the Court’s jurisdiction. See id. A federal court has diversity jurisdiction if (1) the parties to the action are citizens of different states, and (2) the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). For purposes of diversity jurisdiction, “an LLC is a citizen of every state of which its owners/members are citizens.” Johnson v. Columbia Props. Anchorage, LP, 437 F.3d 899, 902 (9th Cir. 2006). Similarly, “a limited partnership is a citizen of all of the states of which its partners are citizens.” Lindley Contours, LLC v. AABB Fitness Holdings, Inc., 414 F. App’x 62, 64 (9th Cir. 2011). ______________________________________________________________________________ CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL Case No. 2:24-cv-06382-GW-SK Date: August 12, 2024 Title: All American Healthcare Services, Inc. v. Shlomo Rechnitz, et al. In the Complaint, as to Defendants who are LPs or LLCs, Plaintiff states only that the Defendant is a “California limited liability company with its principal place of business at [a California address]” or Defendant is a “California limited partnership with a principal place of business at [a California address].” (See Compl. ¶¶ 3–11, 13–18.) But Plaintiff does not allege the identity of the LLCs’ or LPs’ members or their citizenship. Accordingly, Plaintiff is ORDERED to show cause, in writing not to exceed four pages, why the Court should not remand this action to state court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Plaintiff’s response is due within five (5) days of the date of this Order. Failure to timely respond will result in the immediate remand of the case. Initials of Deputy Clerk: cr ______________________________________________________________________________ CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL 2