Redwood Villa Interfaith Housing Corporation v. Nationwide Affordable Housing Fund 33, LLC
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Anthony J. Battaglia (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed cross-motions for summary judgment and identified unresolved questions regarding diversity and federal question jurisdiction. It ordered the parties to submit supplemental briefing and oral argument on these jurisdictional issues and vacated the previously scheduled hearing.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Ordering supplemental briefing on jurisdictional issues“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. On or before September 29, 2025, the Parties must each file a supplemental brief, not to exceed five pages, addressing the above-identified issues.” | agree with court The court is exercising its inherent authority to manage the docket and ensure it has subject matter jurisdiction before ruling on the merits. Requesting briefing on jurisdiction is a standard procedural step when jurisdictional facts are disputed or unclear. |
Vacating the summary judgment hearing“In light of the need for supplemental briefing, the Court VACATES the motions hearings currently scheduled for October 2, 2025, at 2:00 PM.” | agree with court Vacating a hearing to allow for further briefing on a threshold jurisdictional issue is a reasonable exercise of judicial discretion to ensure the court does not rule on the merits without establishing jurisdiction. |
The order itself: sound — The order is a procedural directive to address threshold jurisdictional questions before ruling on the merits. It correctly identifies that the court must determine if it has subject matter jurisdiction (diversity or federal question) and cites relevant district court cases that have addressed similar issues involving LLCs and housing funds. The reasoning is sound for a pre-decisional order.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 12 REDWOOD INTERFAITH HOUSING Case No.: 24-cv-00233-AJB-JLB CORPORATION, 13 ORDER REQUESTING Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, 14 SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING v. 15 (Doc. Nos. 58, 60) NATIONWIDE AFFORDABLE 16 HOUSING FUND 33, LLC, et al., 17 Defendants/Counterclaimants. 18 19 Before the Court are the Parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment. (Doc. Nos. 20 58; 60.) In considering the motions, the Court requests that the Parties submit supplemental 21 briefing on the following issues: 22 1. Whether the Court has diversity jurisdiction of this matter, particularly in light 23 of the decisions in King Plaza, LLC v. Allian Tax Credit Fund 40, Ltd., 742 24 F. Supp. 3d 453 (D.N.J. 2024); Wesley Housing Development Corporation of 25 Northern Virginia v. SunAmerica Housing Fund 1171, 577 F. Supp. 3d 448 26 (E.D. Va. 2021); and Beneficial Pines at Warrington, LLC v. MG GTC Middle 27 Tier II, LLC, No. 8:22-cv-1351-SDM-CPT, 2022 WL 17495881 (M.D. Fl. 28 Dec. 8, 2022). 1 2. Whether the Court has federal question jurisdiction of this matter, particularly 2 in light of the decision in Riseboro Community Partnership Inc. v. 3 SunAmerica Housing Fund No. 682, 401 F. Supp. 3d 367 (E.D.N.Y. 2019). 4 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 5 l. On or before September 29, 2025, the Parties must each file a supplemental 6 brief, not to exceed five pages, addressing the above-identified issues. 7 2. On or before October 6, 2025, the Parties may each file a supplemental 8 response brief, not to exceed three pages. 9 3. Replies will not be accepted. 10 4. The Parties must appear before the undersigned to present argument on the 1] above-identified issues on October 16, 2025, at 2:00 PM, in Courtroom 4A. 12 In light of the need for supplemental briefing, the Court VACATES the motions 13 || hearings currently scheduled for October 2, 2025, at 2:00 PM. 14 IT IS SO ORDERED. 15 Dated: September 15, 2025 16 Hon. Anthony J haacka 17 United States District Judge 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28