Playco Global, Inc. v. Reisel
- Nathanael Cousins
- 5:21-cv-00492
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Playco Global v. Reisel, Judge Cousins ordered Playco to explain why its case should not be dismissed for lacking federal jurisdiction.
Playco Global, Inc., which was required to explain the basis for federal jurisdiction; VGames, L.P. could optionally reply.
What happened
Playco Global, Inc. sued Eitan Reisel and VGames, L.P. and claimed the federal court could hear the case because the parties were citizens of different places.
The court said Playco used the citizenship rules for corporations when describing VGames, which is a limited partnership. For a limited partnership, Playco needed to identify the citizenship of every member.
Judge Nathanael M. Cousins ordered Playco to explain in writing by March 3, 2021, why the case should not be dismissed for lack of federal jurisdiction. The court did not dismiss the case in this order, and VGames could optionally reply by March 8, 2021.
The detailed version
- Playco Global, Inc. v. Reisel · No. 5:21-cv-00492
- Nathanael Cousins
- Feb. 25, 2021
Background
Playco Global, Inc. filed an amended complaint against Eitan Reisel and VGames, L.P. Playco alleged that the court had diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(2), meaning jurisdiction based on the parties' citizenship and the amount or nature of the dispute specified by that statute.
Jurisdiction issue
The court explained that the citizenship analysis depends on the type of entity involved. Playco treated VGames, L.P. as though it were a corporation. Because VGames is a limited partnership, Playco needed to identify the citizenship of each of VGames' members to establish diversity jurisdiction.
Order
The court ordered Playco to show cause in writing—meaning to explain—why the case should not be dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, or the court's legal authority to hear the case. Playco's written response was due March 3, 2021. VGames had not yet appeared but could file an optional reply by March 8, 2021. The order did not dismiss the case or finally decide whether jurisdiction existed.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.