Short v. ZBS Law LLP
- Lin
- 3:24-cv-07908
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Short v. ZBS Law LLP, Judge Lin denied leave to amend because the proposed state-law complaint would lack federal subject-matter jurisdiction.
Wilton C. Short could not add the proposed state-law claims. The previously dismissed claims remained dismissed with prejudice, and the case was to be closed. ZBS Law LLP and the other defendants were not required to litigate the proposed Second Amended Complaint.
What happened
In Short v. ZBS Law LLP, Wilton C. Short asked to file a second amended complaint asserting new state-law claims related to a foreclosure. The proposed complaint relied on diversity jurisdiction and did not include federal claims.
Short acknowledged that he had not alleged the citizenship of ZBS Law LLP’s members. The court also noted that a ZBS Law employee declared that the firm’s managing partner is a California citizen, while Short alleged that he is a California citizen. The court therefore concluded that diversity jurisdiction was not adequately established, and it found no federal-question jurisdiction.
Judge Rita F. Lin denied leave to amend because the proposed amendment would be futile without subject-matter jurisdiction. The court also declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims, left the previously dismissed claims dismissed with prejudice, and stated that the case would be closed.
The detailed version
- Short v. ZBS Law LLP · No. 3:24-cv-07908
- Lin
- Sept. 3, 2025
Background
The court had previously dismissed Wilton Short’s First Amended Complaint, which asserted federal and state claims related to a foreclosure, for failure to state a claim. The dismissal allowed amendment, but instructed Short to seek permission before adding new claims.
Short moved for leave to file a Second Amended Complaint. The proposed complaint contained new state-law claims and no federal claims. It alleged that Short was a California citizen and that ZBS Law LLP’s principal place of business was in California. The proposed complaint asserted diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332.
Jurisdiction
The court ordered additional briefing on whether diversity jurisdiction would exist if amendment were allowed. The parties agreed that the proposed complaint did not adequately plead diversity. Short conceded that he had not alleged the citizenship of ZBS Law’s members. The court cited the rule that a limited liability partnership’s citizenship for diversity purposes depends on the citizenship of each member. Defendants also submitted a declaration stating that ZBS Law’s managing partner is a California citizen.
Because Short had not pleaded that all defendants were citizens of states different from his, the court concluded that diversity jurisdiction would not exist over the proposed complaint. The court also concluded that the proposed claims did not arise under the Constitution, federal laws, or treaties, so federal-question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 was unavailable. It declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims because the case was at an early stage and state-law claims would substantially predominate.
Ruling
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15 generally favors allowing amendments when justice requires, but an amendment may be denied when it would be futile. The court held that the proposed amendment would be futile because the court would lack subject-matter jurisdiction over it. Leave to amend was DENIED.
Because no amendment would be filed, the court ordered that the claims previously dismissed from the First Amended Complaint remain dismissed with prejudice. The court stated that the case would be closed.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.