Suntree Snack Foods LLC v. Dees Nuts LLC

1 WO — 2 — — 3 — — 4 — — 5 — 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA — 8 — 9 Suntree Snack Foods LLC, et al., No. CV-24-02845-PHX-KML 10 Plaintiffs, ORDER 11 v. 12 Dees Nuts LLC, et al., 13 Defendants. — 14 — 15 Plaintiff Redlands Holdings LLC filed a statement that seems to establish Redlands 16 should be considered a citizen of Delaware and New York. (Doc. 14.) That statement 17 identified defendant Dees Nuts as a Florida limited liability company but says “Florida 18 does not disclose the identity of members or managers” of LLCs. (Doc. 14.) Redlands 19 believes that is good enough to remain in federal court. It is not. 20 “[A] federal court may exercise diversity jurisdiction only if there is no plaintiff and 21 no defendant who are citizens of the same State.” Weeping Hollow Ave. Tr. v. Spencer, 831 22 F.3d 1110, 1112 (9th Cir. 2016) (quotation marks and citation omitted). As the court 23 explained multiple times, citizenship of a limited liability company is determined by 24 identifying the citizenships of its “owners/members.” Johnson v. Columbia Properties 25 Anchorage, LP, 437 F.3d 894, 899 (9th Cir. 2006). Thus, the court must be provided 26 information regarding the citizenship of all relevant “owners/members” to ensure it has 27 jurisdiction. 28 Redlands chose to file this suit in federal court, meaning it “bears the burden of || both pleading and proving diversity jurisdiction.” NewGen, LLC v. Safe Cig, LLC, 840 F.3d 2 || 606, 613-14 (9th Cir. 2016). The operative complaint does not contain allegations regarding Dees Nuts’s citizenship. In fact, that complaint identifies Dees Nuts as “a 4|| corporation.” (Doc. 12 at 1.) The latest supplement observes Florida does not disclose the 5 || members of LLCs. (Doc. 14.) At this point, Redlands has not carried its burden of pleading 6 || jurisdiction. 7 Redlands is required to establish why this case should not be dismissed for lack of 8 || jurisdiction. If Redlands wants this suit to remain in federal court, it must provide some 9|| good faith basis for its belief that complete diversity exists. 10 Accordingly, 11 IT IS ORDERED no later than December 4, 2024, plaintiff shall show cause why || this case should not be dismissed for lack of diversity jurisdiction. Failure to establish 13 | complete diversity will result in the dismissal of this case without prejudice. 14 Dated this 26th day of November, 2024. — 15 — 17 □□ LA We Cet Honorable Krissa M. Lanham 18 United States District Judge — 19 — — 20 — — 21 — — 22 — — 23 — — 24 — — 25 — — 26 — — 27 — — 28 — _2-