Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
On September 28, 2026, plaintiffs Golden West Food Group, Inc. and related parties filed a complaint against defendants B&E Foods LLC and Rowena Packing, LLC in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. The complaint invoked federal subject matter jurisdiction based on diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. However, the pleading did not contain adequate allegations regarding the citizenship of the defendant entities, which are limited liability companies whose citizenship depends on the citizenship of their members.
The court, presided over by Judge Fernando M. Olguin, reviewed the complaint and determined that paragraph 7 — which addressed jurisdiction — failed to set forth sufficient facts to allow the court to determine whether complete diversity existed between the parties. Because LLC citizenship is determined by the citizenship of all its members, the absence of any member-citizenship allegations rendered the jurisdictional showing incomplete. The court therefore issued an order directing plaintiffs to cure the deficiency by filing an amended complaint.
The Court’s Holding
The court ordered plaintiffs to file a First Amended Complaint no later than October 28, 2026, that properly alleges the citizenship of each defendant, including the citizenship of all members of the defendant LLCs. The order warned that failure to comply would be deemed consent to dismissal of the action without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction and/or failure to comply with a court order, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). The court cited binding Ninth Circuit authority, including Edwards v. Marin Park, Inc., 356 F.3d 1058 (9th Cir. 2004), and Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258 (9th Cir. 1992), affirming that dismissal is appropriate when a plaintiff fails to respond to a court's ultimatum to amend a deficient complaint.
The ruling did not reach the merits of the underlying dispute. It addressed only the procedural deficiency in the jurisdictional allegations. The court emphasized that plaintiffs bear the burden of establishing subject matter jurisdiction and must plead the citizenship of all members of any LLC party to invoke diversity jurisdiction. No appearance was made by either party at the in-chambers proceeding, and the order was issued on the court's own initiative based on its review of the complaint.
Key Takeaways
- Plaintiffs must allege the citizenship of all members of an LLC to establish diversity jurisdiction; naming the LLC alone is insufficient.
- Failure to cure a jurisdictional defect after a court order to amend may result in dismissal without prejudice under Rule 41(b).
- The court may raise jurisdictional deficiencies sua sponte and impose a deadline to amend.
- Ninth Circuit precedent supports dismissal when a plaintiff ignores a court's directive to correct jurisdictional allegations.
Why It Matters
This order underscores the strict pleading requirements for diversity jurisdiction in cases involving unincorporated entities such as LLCs. Courts in the Ninth Circuit routinely require plaintiffs to trace citizenship through all layers of membership to establish complete diversity. The decision serves as a procedural reminder that jurisdictional defects must be cured promptly when identified by the court, or the action risks dismissal.
While the ruling is interlocutory and non-precedential, it reflects consistent application of Rule 41(b) sanctions for failure to prosecute or comply with court orders in the Central District of California. The order also illustrates the court's proactive case management approach, raising jurisdictional deficiencies sua sponte before the parties have even appeared, and setting a firm deadline with clear consequences for noncompliance. This practice helps conserve judicial resources and ensures that cases proceed only where federal jurisdiction is properly established.