Wildflower Aesthetics and Wellness Clinic, PLLC v. Cutera Inc

Background

Wildflower Aesthetics and Wellness Clinic, PLLC sued Cutera Inc. The operative First Amended Complaint asserts fraudulent inducement and violations of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act, or alternatively California’s Unfair Competition Law. Wildflower alleged that the court had diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332.

Jurisdictional issue

The court explained that federal courts have limited jurisdiction. It concluded that federal-question jurisdiction did not apply because Wildflower asserted only state-law claims. Diversity jurisdiction requires, among other things, that the parties be citizens of different states and that the amount in controversy exceed $75,000.

Wildflower alleged that it is a Texas entity with its principal place of business in San Antonio, Texas, and that Cutera is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in California. But the court explained that a limited-liability company generally is a citizen of every state in which its members or owners are citizens. Because Wildflower did not allege the citizenship of its members or owners, the court found the jurisdictional allegations incomplete. Wildflower, as the party asserting diversity jurisdiction, bears the burden of establishing that jurisdiction exists.

Order

The court ordered Wildflower to show cause—that is, to explain—what the citizenship is of Wildflower’s members or owners. It required a written response by August 14, 2026. The order states that failure to respond will result in dismissal of the action for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The order did not resolve the fraudulent-inducement or consumer-protection claims on their merits.