MOTION TO QUASH BY TEDAN SURGICAL INNOVATIONS
TENTATIVE RULING:
The motion to quash is denied.
A. The Motion Fails to Establish General Jurisdiction
Plaintiffs argue that TeDan is subject to general jurisdiction because a limited liability company is a citizen of every state in which its members are citizens. At least one member of TeDan is a California citizen, which means that TeDan is a California citizen. Defendants’ Supplemental Brief does not address this argument. Plaintiffs offer a correct statement of law, but it does not result in personal jurisdiction over TeDan.
The cases cited in Plaintiffs’ Supplemental Opposition are in the context of federal diversity jurisdiction. (See Johnston v. Columbia Props. Anchorage, LP (9th Cir. 2006) 437 F.3d 894, 899; Delay v. Rosenthal Collins Group (6th Cir. 2009) 585 F.3d 1003, 1005.) The issue in those cases was whether an LLC was considered a citizen of a particular state in order to establish diversity. The issue was not whether the LLC