ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE REGARDING DIVERSITY JURISDICTION

Re: Dkt. No. 1

NATHANAEL M. COUSINS, Magistrate Judge.

Defendants George Micheal Neill and RMR Financial, LLC (dba First Capital) removed this case from California state court on the basis of diversity jurisdiction. Dkt. No. 1 at 2. It is the Court's duty to examine whether it has subject matter jurisdiction over any case before it.

Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and are presumptively without jurisdiction. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). The defendant has the burden of showing removal of a state court action to federal court is appropriate. Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992). Removal of a state court action to federal court is appropriate only if the federal court would have had original subject matter jurisdiction over the suit. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a).

It is not clear that diversity of citizenship exists here, and so the existence of subject matter jurisdiction is uncertain. This is because defendant RMR Financial is a limited liability company, and the citizenship of each member of the company must be considered in the diversity analysis. Carden v. Arkoma Assocs., 494 U.S. 185, 195 (1990); Johnson v. Columbia Properties Anchorage, LP, 437 F.3d 894, 899 (9th Cir. 2006). RMR Financial did not inform the Court of the citizenship of each of the LLC's members. Thus, the Court ORDERS RMR Financial, LLC to SHOW CAUSE why the Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this case. RMR Financial must file a response to this order by December 29, 2017. That response may not exceed 5 pages in length. Both parties have not yet consented to nor declined the jurisdiction of a magistrate judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). For this reason, if RMR Financial does not respond to this order, the Court will order this case transferred to a district court judge with the recommendation that this case be remanded to California state court.

IT IS SO ORDERED.