# Opinion

> District Court, C.D. California · December 5, 2025

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11219089

## Case

- **Full name:** Samantha Cruz v. AI California LLC et al
- **Court:** District Court, C.D. California
- **Decided:** December 5, 2025
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11219089

## Opinion text

____________________________________________________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

Case No. 2:25-cv-10949-JLS-MBK Date: December 05, 2025
Title: Samantha Cruz v. AI California LLC et al

Present: Honorable JOSEPHINE L. STATON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Kelly Davis N/A
Deputy Clerk Court Reporter

ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR PLAINTIFF: ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR DEFENDANT:

Not Present Not Present

PROCEEDINGS: (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY
THIS ACTION SHOULD NOT BE REMANDED TO
STATE COURT

On July 17, 2025, Plaintiff filed the instant action in California Superior Court.
(See Ex. 1 to Browning Decl., Compl., Doc. 4.) On November 14, 2025, Defendant
removed the case to this Court on the basis of diversity jurisdiction, asserting that the
parties are diverse and that the allegations in the Complaint place the amount in
controversy in excess of $75,000. (NOR ¶ 8, Doc. 1.)

Defendant’s assertions of citizenship, however, are insufficient to establish
diversity jurisdiction. Defendant states that it is a “limited liability company existing
under the laws of the State of Delaware,” with its principal place of business in Illinois.
(Jay Decl. ¶¶ 6–7, Doc. 3.) However, “an LLC is a citizen of every state of which its
owners/members are citizens.” Johnson v. Columbia Props. Anchorage, LP, 437 F.3d
894, 899 (9th Cir. 2006); see also Breckenridge v. Best Buy Co., 2010 WL 5315812, at *1
(C.D. Cal. Dec. 17, 2010) (explaining why the defendant’s reliance on Davis v. HSBC
Bank Nev., N.A., 557 F.3d 1026 (9th Cir. 2009) was inappropriate). Defendant does not
provide information as to its owners or members, so the Court cannot determine
Defendant’s citizenship.
____________________________________________________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

Case No. 2:25-cv-10949-JLS-MBK Date: December 05, 2025
Title: Samantha Cruz v. AI California LLC et al
Accordingly, Defendant is ORDERED to show cause, in writing, no later than five
(5) days from the date of this Order, why this action should not be remanded for want of
federal jurisdiction. Failure to timely or adequately respond will result in this action
being remanded to state court.

Initials of preparer: kd

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11219089. Public record. Not legal advice.