SEO Development, LLC v. Gordon Thomas Honeywell, LLP, C18-1551JLR. (2018)
Court: District Court, D. Washington
Number: infdco20181207h06
Visitors: 4
Filed: Dec. 05, 2018
Latest Update: Dec. 05, 2018
Summary: ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION JAMES L. ROBART , District Judge . Plaintiffs filed their complaint on October 19, 2018, alleging federal subject matter jurisdiction based on the parties' diversity of citizenship under 28 U.S.C. 1332(a)(1). ( See Compl. (Dkt. # 1) 35-42.) On November 8, 2018, the court issued an order to show cause regarding the court's subject matter jurisdiction. (OSC (Dkt. # 12).) The court explained that, for the purpose of asses
Summary: ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION JAMES L. ROBART , District Judge . Plaintiffs filed their complaint on October 19, 2018, alleging federal subject matter jurisdiction based on the parties' diversity of citizenship under 28 U.S.C. 1332(a)(1). ( See Compl. (Dkt. # 1) 35-42.) On November 8, 2018, the court issued an order to show cause regarding the court's subject matter jurisdiction. (OSC (Dkt. # 12).) The court explained that, for the purpose of assess..
More
ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION
JAMES L. ROBART, District Judge.
Plaintiffs filed their complaint on October 19, 2018, alleging federal subject matter jurisdiction based on the parties' diversity of citizenship under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1). (See Compl. (Dkt. # 1) ¶¶ 35-42.) On November 8, 2018, the court issued an order to show cause regarding the court's subject matter jurisdiction. (OSC (Dkt. # 12).) The court explained that, for the purpose of assessing diversity jurisdiction, the court must consider the citizenship of all members or partners of a limited liability partnership, such as Defendant Gordon Thomas Honeywell, LLP ("GTH"). (Id. at 2.) However, Plaintiffs failed to allege the citizenship of GTH's members or partners. (Id. (citing Compl.).) The court ordered Plaintiffs to show cause within 14 days why the court should not dismiss their complaint without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. (Id. at 3.) On December 3, 2018, Plaintiffs filed a late response to the court's order stating that they "have no objection to the court's dismissal in accordance with the [o]der to [s]how [c]ause." (OSC Resp. (Dkt. # 17).) Accordingly, the court DISMISSES Plaintiffs' complaint without prejudice because Plaintiffs failed to demonstrate the court's subject matter jurisdiction.1
FootNotes
1. As a result of this order, the court declines to consider Defendants' motion to strike the complaint. (See Mot. to Strike (Dkt. # 14).) The court DIRECTS the Clerk to terminate this motion at the time the Clerk closes this file.
Source: Leagle
