KMS LLC v. Major League Trucking Inc, 2:23-cv-01119

Original action: KMS LLC sued Major League Trucking in the Central District of California invoking diversity jurisdiction.
Major League Trucking filed a third-party complaint against Forsla LLC asserting indemnity and related claims under supplemental jurisdiction.
The third-party complaint was severed and transferred to the Western District of Washington based on a forum-selection clause between Major League and Forsla.
Forsla is alleged to be a Washington LLC, but the citizenship of its members/owners is not disclosed in the record.
Major League Trucking appears to be a California citizen; the party asserting jurisdiction bears the burden of proof.
The district court, on its own review, questioned subject matter jurisdiction post-transfer and ordered disclosure and briefing from the parties regarding jurisdiction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether supplemental jurisdiction over the third-party indemnity claim continues after the claim was severed and transferred to another district	Major League Trucking invoked supplemental jurisdiction in the original filing and would assert it covers the third-party claim arising from the same transaction	Forsla has not yet presented a position on this question in the record; the court raised the possibility that transfer/severance may end supplemental jurisdiction	Court did not decide; ordered Major League Trucking to brief whether supplemental jurisdiction extends post-severance/transfer
If supplemental jurisdiction does not extend, whether independent subject-matter jurisdiction exists (diversity) between Major League Trucking and Forsla	Major League must show diversity exists between it and Forsla (i.e., citizens of different states)	Forsla’s citizenship is presently unknown because its members/owners have not been disclosed	Court ordered Forsla to file a Rule 7.1 corporate disclosure identifying all members/owners and their citizenship; directed briefing on whether diversity jurisdiction independently exists

Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp., 546 U.S. 500 (subject-matter jurisdiction cannot be waived and courts must police it sua sponte)
United States v. Cotton, 535 U.S. 625 (subject-matter jurisdiction is fundamental and non-waivable)
Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375 (party asserting jurisdiction bears burden)
Robert E. Blake Inc. v. Excel Env’t, 104 F.3d 1158 (9th Cir.) (recognizing supplemental jurisdiction over third-party indemnity claims arising from same transaction)
Underwriters at Lloyd’s Subscribing to Cover Note B1526MACAR1800089 v. Abaxis, Inc., 491 F. Supp. 3d 506 (N.D. Cal.) (exercising supplemental jurisdiction over third-party indemnity claims)
Johnson v. Columbia Props. Anchorage, LP, 437 F.3d 894 (9th Cir.) (an LLC is a citizen of every state of which its members/owners are citizens)