Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
N.D. Cal.Procedural orderFiled Sept. 18, 2026

Nguyen v. American Credit Acceptance

Judge
Nathanael Cousins
Docket
5:26-cv-10582
Court
U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
Pages
2
Civil Procedure
In one sentence

In David Nguyen v. American Credit Acceptance, Chief Magistrate Judge Cousins ordered the defendant to explain why the case should not be remanded for lack of jurisdiction.

Who this affects

American Credit Acceptance, LLC must explain the citizenship of its members and why the case should remain in federal court; David Nguyen may respond to that explanation.

What happened

In David Nguyen v. American Credit Acceptance, LLC, the court questioned whether it has authority to hear the case. The defendant argued that federal diversity jurisdiction exists, but identified the citizenship of its limited liability company members only by state, without identifying the members themselves.

The court said that information was insufficient to determine whether all opposing parties are citizens of different states. It ordered the defendant to explain in writing by October 2, 2026, why the case should not be sent back to state court. The plaintiff may respond by October 9, 2026.

The order did not yet remand the case. Chief United States Magistrate Judge Nathanael M. Cousins issued an order requiring the defendant to show cause regarding subject-matter jurisdiction.

The detailed version

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

Case
Nguyen v. American Credit Acceptance · No. 5:26-cv-10582
Judge
Nathanael Cousins
Date
Sept. 18, 2026

Background

The case is in federal court after the defendant, American Credit Acceptance, LLC, asserted that diversity jurisdiction exists. Diversity jurisdiction allows a federal court to hear certain disputes between citizens of different states when the amount in controversy is greater than $75,000. The party removing a case to federal court bears the burden of showing that removal is proper.

Court’s Analysis

The defendant alleged that it is a citizen of South Carolina, North Carolina, and Tennessee, and that its members are citizens and residents of those states. The court explained that a limited liability company must identify its members so the court can determine the citizenship of each member, including whether any member is itself another limited liability company or partnership. Because the defendant did not provide information identifying its members, the court said it could not determine whether complete diversity exists.

Order

The court ordered American Credit Acceptance, LLC, to show cause in writing by October 2, 2026, why the case should not be remanded to state court for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The plaintiff may respond by October 9, 2026. The order is not a final remand; it gives the defendant an opportunity to address the jurisdictional problem.

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.