Knight Consulting Group, LLC v. Arora
- Nathanael Cousins
- 5:25-cv-07672
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Knight Consulting Group v. Arora, Judge Cousins ordered Arora to explain why the case should not be sent back for lack of federal jurisdiction.
Defendant Sean Arora must provide the written jurisdictional response. The plaintiffs may respond, and the case’s continued presence in federal court is at issue.
What happened
Knight Consulting Group, LLC and other plaintiffs sued Sean Arora and other defendants in state court. Arora removed the case to federal court on September 9, 2025, claiming the court had jurisdiction based on the parties’ citizenship and the amount in dispute.
The court found that Arora provided enough information about the amount in dispute but did not provide enough information about Knight Consulting Group’s owners or members. Because an LLC’s citizenship depends on the citizenship of all its owners or members, the court could not determine whether complete diversity existed.
Judge Nathanael M. Cousins ordered Arora to file a written response by September 24 explaining why the case should not be returned to state court. The plaintiffs may respond by October 1. The order did not finally remand the case.
The detailed version
- Knight Consulting Group, LLC v. Arora · No. 5:25-cv-07672
- Nathanael Cousins
- Sept. 10, 2025
Background
Defendant Sean Arora, M.D. removed this case from Santa Clara County Superior Court to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on September 9, 2025. The court issued an order to show cause, meaning it required Arora to submit a written explanation by September 24, 2025, addressing why the case should not be returned to state court for lack of federal subject matter jurisdiction.
Federal district courts generally have jurisdiction based on a federal question or diversity of citizenship. Diversity jurisdiction requires complete diversity between the opposing parties and an amount in controversy greater than $75,000.
Jurisdictional Deficiency
Arora asserted that diversity jurisdiction existed because he was a Washington resident and because corporate defendants were organized under state law. The court found that Arora provided sufficient information to establish that the amount-in-controversy requirement was satisfied.
The court concluded, however, that Arora used the wrong test for determining an LLC’s citizenship and did not provide enough facts about the citizenship of Knight Consulting Group’s owners or members. An LLC is a citizen of every state in which any of its owners or members is a citizen. Without that information, the court could not determine whether complete diversity existed.
Order
The court ordered Arora to show cause in writing by September 24, 2025, why the case should not be remanded to state court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The plaintiffs may respond by October 1, 2025. The order did not itself remand the case.
Judge Nathanael M. Cousins signed the order on September 10, 2025.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.