Filed: Jun. 27, 2014
Latest Update: Jun. 27, 2014
Summary: ORDER DENYING APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND DISMISSING COMPLAINT FOR LACK OF SUBJECT-MATTER JURSIDICTION GARLAND E. BURRELL, Jr., District Judge. Plaintiff moves ex parte for a temporary restraining order ("TRO") preventing and enjoining Defendant from licensing, offering, selling, performing, broadcasting, or otherwise providing the right to broadcast the "Rob, Arnie & Dawn Show" or any other radio program involving its personalities in the terrestrial Sacramento area to
Summary: ORDER DENYING APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND DISMISSING COMPLAINT FOR LACK OF SUBJECT-MATTER JURSIDICTION GARLAND E. BURRELL, Jr., District Judge. Plaintiff moves ex parte for a temporary restraining order ("TRO") preventing and enjoining Defendant from licensing, offering, selling, performing, broadcasting, or otherwise providing the right to broadcast the "Rob, Arnie & Dawn Show" or any other radio program involving its personalities in the terrestrial Sacramento area to a..
More
ORDER DENYING APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND DISMISSING COMPLAINT FOR LACK OF SUBJECT-MATTER JURSIDICTION
GARLAND E. BURRELL, Jr., District Judge.
Plaintiff moves ex parte for a temporary restraining order ("TRO")
preventing and enjoining Defendant from licensing, offering, selling, performing, broadcasting, or otherwise providing the right to broadcast the "Rob, Arnie & Dawn Show" or any other radio program involving its personalities in the terrestrial Sacramento area to any party other than Plaintiff or otherwise breaching Section 25 of the 2005 Program Agreement between Plaintiff and Defendant.
(Pl.'s Mot. for TRO 1:6-10, ECF No. 5.) However, Plaintiff has not shown there is federal subject-matter jurisdiction over this action.
"[A] district court ha[s] a duty to establish subject matter jurisdiction . . . sua sponte, whether the parties raised the issue or not." United Investors Life Ins. Co. v. Waddell & Reed Inc., 360 F.3d 960, 967 (9th Cir. 2004); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3) ("If the court determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action.").
Plaintiff alleges in the Complaint that diversity of citizenship subject-matter jurisdiction exists since "[t]he amount in controversy exceeds the sum of $75,000, . . . and there is complete diversity of citizenship between the parties." (Compl. ¶ 4, ECF No. 1.) However, Plaintiff alleges it is a limited liability company ("LLC") yet has not alleged the citizenship of each of its members. See Johnson v. Columbia Props. Anchorage, LP, 437 F.3d 894, 902 (9th Cir. 2006) ("LLCs have the citizenship of all of their owners/members . . . ."); see also Lindley Contours, LLC v. AABB Fitness Holdings, Inc., 414 F. App'x 62, 64 (9th Cir. 2011) (requiring a party to allege the citizenship of each member of an LLC, and stating "that if any [LLC] ha[s] partnerships, limited partnerships, or limited liability corporations as members, the citizenship of each individual member of these entities must be alleged (and if these members include[] partnerships, limited partnerships, or limited liability corporations, the citizenship of each individual member of those entities must be alleged—and so on)").
Since Plaintiff has not established that there is subject-matter jurisdiction over this case, the case is dismissed without prejudice. Plaintiff is granted ten (10) days from the date on which this order is filed to file an amended complaint addressing the jurisdictional allegations.
