Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
N.D. Cal.Procedural orderFiled Mar. 12, 2025

De La Rosa v. Centennial Real Estate Management, LLC

Judge
Nathanael Cousins
Docket
5:25-cv-02396
Court
U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
Pages
2
Civil Procedure
In one sentence

In De La Rosa v. Centennial, Judge Cousins ordered Centennial to explain by March 25 why the case should not be remanded for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

Who this affects

Centennial must provide the written response. The case’s continued status in federal court is at issue for all parties, including Gloria De La Rosa, Centennial, Windsor Fashions Holdings LLC, and Northridge Mall.

What happened

De La Rosa v. Centennial Real Estate Management, LLC concerns whether the federal court has authority to hear the case. Centennial asserts that diversity jurisdiction exists, but the court found its allegations insufficient.

The court said Centennial did not identify the citizenship of the owners or members of Centennial and Windsor Fashions Holdings LLC. It also said Centennial did not properly allege Northridge Mall’s citizenship by merely stating that the mall was not listed on a California state website.

Judge Nathanael M. Cousins ordered Centennial to show cause in writing by March 25, 2025, why the case should not be sent back to state court for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The order did not itself remand the case.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
De La Rosa v. Centennial Real Estate Management, LLC · No. 5:25-cv-02396
Judge
Nathanael Cousins
Date
Mar. 12, 2025

Background

Gloria De La Rosa sued Centennial Real Estate Management, LLC, and other defendants. Centennial asserted that the federal court had diversity jurisdiction. Diversity jurisdiction generally requires that opposing parties be citizens of different states and that more than $75,000 be in dispute.

Court’s analysis

The court explained that the party invoking federal jurisdiction bears the burden of showing that jurisdiction exists. For a limited liability company, citizenship is based on the citizenship of every owner or member. Centennial did not allege the citizenship of the owners or members of either Centennial or Windsor Fashions Holdings LLC.

The court also found Centennial’s allegation about Northridge Mall deficient. Saying that Northridge Mall was not listed on the California Secretary of State’s website did not affirmatively establish the mall’s citizenship. Without the missing information, the court could not determine whether complete diversity existed.

Order

Judge Nathanael M. Cousins ordered Centennial to show cause in writing by March 25, 2025, why the case should not be remanded to state court for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The court issued an order requiring an explanation; it did not state that the case had already been remanded.

Classification

This is a procedural order because it addresses whether the federal court has subject-matter jurisdiction and does not decide the underlying claims.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.