Wildflower Aesthetics and Wellness Clinic, PLLC v. Cutera Inc.
- Thomas Hixson
- 3:26-cv-06224
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Wildflower v. Cutera, Judge Hixson discharged the jurisdiction order and allowed Wildflower to amend its diversity allegations.
Wildflower may amend its complaint to correct its allegations establishing diversity jurisdiction; Cutera must file its answer by September 4, 2026.
What happened
Wildflower Aesthetics and Wellness Clinic, PLLC sued Cutera Inc., asserting fraudulent inducement and violations of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act, alternatively California’s unfair-competition law. Wildflower relied on federal diversity jurisdiction.
The court found that Wildflower’s first amended complaint did not allege the citizenship of its members, so it did not adequately plead complete diversity. Wildflower later told the court that its two owner-members were Texas citizens, but the court said it could not use that filing alone to establish jurisdiction.
Judge Thomas S. Hixson discharged the show-cause order, invited Wildflower to file a second amended complaint limited to correcting its jurisdictional allegations by August 21, 2026, and ordered Cutera to answer by September 4, 2026.
The detailed version
- Wildflower Aesthetics and Wellness Clinic, PLLC v. Cutera Inc. · No. 3:26-cv-06224
- Thomas Hixson
- Aug. 14, 2026
Background
Wildflower Aesthetics and Wellness Clinic, PLLC sued Cutera Inc. The operative first amended complaint asserted fraudulent inducement and violations of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act, or alternatively California’s Unfair Competition Law. Wildflower alleged that the court had federal diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332.
Wildflower alleged that it was a Texas entity with its principal place of business in San Antonio, Texas, and that Cutera was a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in California. But the first amended complaint did not allege the citizenship of Wildflower’s members or owners.
Show-Cause Order and Jurisdiction
The court issued a show-cause order requiring Wildflower to provide information about the citizenship of its members or owners. Wildflower responded that its two owner-members, Dr. Jami Barnard and Dr. Kathryn Holloway, were residents and citizens of Texas. The court was satisfied that it possessed jurisdiction based on diversity of citizenship and therefore discharged the show-cause order.
The court nevertheless explained that Wildflower still had to plead the facts establishing complete diversity in its complaint. Relying on Ninth Circuit precedent, the court stated that a district court could not establish diversity citizenship purely through judicial notice and that the party invoking federal jurisdiction bears the burden of pleading and proving it. Because the first amended complaint omitted the members’ citizenship, it did not adequately allege complete diversity. The court also concluded that amendment would not prejudice either party and would not be futile.
Disposition
The court invited Wildflower to file a second amended complaint by August 21, 2026, solely to cure the defective jurisdictional allegations. The order discharged the show-cause order; it did not decide the merits of Wildflower’s claims. The court also stated that Cutera Inc. must file its answer by September 4, 2026.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.