Case No. SACV 17-00890-CJC(KESx).

FAST TRAK INVESTMENT COMPANY, LLC, a limited liability company, Plaintiff, v. THERESA AND STEPHEN WHITE, a married couple; LAWRENCE MOY, individually and as a partner of the MOY & FERNANDEZ LAW GROUP, and principal for the Law Office of Lawrence A. Moy, Esq.; NORMAN G. FERNANDEZ, individually and as a partner of the MOY & FERNANDEZ LAW GROUP, and as principal for The Law Offices of Norman G. Fernandez; MOY & FERNANDEZ LAW GROUP, a law partnership; DOES 1-10, inclusive; BLACK PARTNERSHIPS 1-10, inclusive; WHITE CORPORATIONS 1-10, inclusive, Defendants.

United States District Court, C.D. California, Southern Division.

Editors Note
Applicable Law: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Cause: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity - Breach of Contract
Nature of Suit: 190 Contract: Other
Source: PACER

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Fast Trak Investment Company, LLC, Plaintiff, represented by Kira Ann Schlesinger , Schlesinger Conrad Law Firm.


CORMAC J. CARNEY, District Judge.

On May 22, 2017, Plaintiff Fast Track Investment Company, LLC, filed this case alleging five causes of action against Defendants Theresa and Stephen White, Lawrence Moy, Norman G. Fernandez, and Moy & Fernandez Law Group, including breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, constructive fraud, and unjust enrichment. (See Dkt. 1 [Complaint, hereinafter "Compl."].) Plaintiff's Complaint asserts that this Court has subject matter jurisdiction based on diversity of the parties. (Id. ¶¶ 1-4.)

A district court has original "diversity" subject matterV jurisdiction over all "civil actions where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interests and cost," and the action is "between citizens of different States." 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1). The district court has jurisdiction only if there is "complete diversity" between the parties, meaning that each plaintiff is a citizen of a different state than each defendant. See id.; Caterpillar Inc. v. Lewis, 519 U.S. 61, 68 (1996) (citing Strawbridge v. Curtiss, 3 Cranch. 267) (1806)).

The Complaint seems to rely on 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1), which states that, "a corporation shall be deemed to be a citizen of any state by which it has been incorporated and of the State where it has its principal place of business." (See Compl. ¶ 5.) However, Plaintiff is not a corporation, but rather is a limited liability company. (Id.) Citizenship of a limited liability company is determined not by incorporation and by principal place of business, but rather by the citizenship of its members. Carden v. Arkoma Assocs., 494 U.S. 185, 195-96 (1990). By failing to properly plead its citizenship, Plaintiff has failed to plead diversity jurisdiction. The Court sua sponte DISMISSES this action WITHOUT PREJUDICE. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3).


1000 Characters Remaining reserves the right to edit or remove comments but is under no obligation to do so, or to explain individual moderation decisions.

User Comments

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases