Knuth v. Cap Patrol, LLC Ohio
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Cynthia Ann Bashant (author)
Analysis
The court ordered the corporate defendants to file Rule 7.1 corporate disclosure statements to establish their citizenship for diversity jurisdiction purposes. The court set a deadline of August 1, 2025, for the filing of these forms.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Order requiring corporate defendants to file disclosure statements“Accordingly, the Court ORDERS Defendants Cap Patrol, LLC Ohio, and Cap Patrol, LLC Kentucky, to file the appropriate corporate disclosure forms no later than August 1, 2025.” | agree with court The order correctly identifies that the dismissal of federal claims and the assertion of diversity jurisdiction constitutes a 'later event' under Rule 7.1(a)(2)(B) that triggers the requirement to file a disclosure statement. The court correctly applies the rule that an LLC is a citizen of every state of which its members are citizens, making the disclosure necessary to determine complete diversity. The deadline set is reasonable and within the court's discretion. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally correct and relies on the appropriate rule and case law. It accurately identifies the trigger for the disclosure requirement and the legal standard for LLC citizenship. The reasoning is concise and directly addresses the procedural deficiency.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DEAN L. KNUTH, Case No. 23-cv-1676-BAS-DEB 12 Plaintiff, ORDER REQUIRING CORPORATE 13 v. DEFENDANTS TO FILE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT 14 CAP PATROL, LLC OHIO; CAP PATROL, LLC KENTUCKY; GEORGE 15 E. THURNER, III, 16 Defendants. 17 18 As the Court has dismissed with prejudice Plaintiff’s federal claim (ECF No. 30), 19 Plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaint (“TAC”) alleges the Court has subject-matter 20 jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s surviving state-law claims under diversity jurisdiction (ECF 21 No. 31 ¶ 10). However, the Court unaware of the complete citizenship of the parties in this 22 case as the corporate defendants have failed to file the appropriate corporate disclosure 23 forms under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 7.1. 24 A federal court has diversity jurisdiction over a non-federal claim where there is 25 complete diversity of parties and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. 28 U.S.C. 26 § 1332(a). A limited liability company is a “citizen of every state of which its 27 owners/members are citizens.” Johnson v. Columbia Props. Anchorage, LP, 437 F.3d 894, 28 899 (9th Cir. 2006). A party in a diversity case is required to file a disclosure statement 1 ||naming and identifying the citizenship of “every individual or entity whose citizenship is 2 ||attributed to that party or intervenor.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 7.1(a)(2). This requirement is 3 || triggered “when any later event occurs that could affect the court’s jurisdiction under 4 1332(a).” Id. 7.1(a)(2)(B). A plaintiff dropping all federal claims and asserting diversity 5 ||jsurisdiction is just such a “later event.” 6 Accordingly, the Court ORDERS Defendants Cap Patrol, LLC Ohio, and Cap 7 || Patrol, LLC Kentucky, to file the appropriate corporate disclosure forms no later than 8 || August 1, 2025. 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. 10 11 || DATED: July 24, 2025 (yatta Bahar 12 Hon. Cynthia Bashant, Chief Judge B United States District Court 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28