MindSight Medical LLC v. Mobile One Docs LLC

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
WO
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
MindSight Medical LLC,
Plaintiff,
v.
Mobile One Docs LLC,
Defendant.
No. CV-25-02212-PHX-DGC
ORDER
Plaintiff MindSight Medical, LLC, has filed a motion for default judgment against
Defendant Mobile One Docs, LLC, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(b).
Doc. 11. No response has been filed. For reasons stated below, default judgment is
inappropriate at this time.
I. Background.
Plaintiff Mindsight Medical, LLC, is a limited liability company with its principal
office in Dallas County, Texas. Doc. 1 ¶ 1. Defendant Mobile One Docs, LLC, is a limited
liability company with its principal place of business in Arizona. Id. ¶ 2. Around May 10,
2021, the parties entered a Product Purchase Agreement through which Defendant agreed
to purchase certain products from Plaintiff and make payment for each order within 45
days of each generated invoice. Id. ¶ 4-6. Defendant allegedly submitted orders and
received delivery of products, but failed to make any payment. Id. ¶ 8. Plaintiff alleges an
outstanding account balance of $380,960.00 that Defendant has “refused to pay,” despite
Plaintiff sending a demand letter on September 22, 2022. Id. ¶¶ 9-10.
Case 2:25-cv-02212-DGC Document 12 Filed 10/22/25 Page 1 of 2

- 2 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
On June 25, 2025, Plaintiff brought this lawsuit, claiming diversity jurisdiction. Id.
¶¶ 1-3. Defendant failed to respond, and Plaintiff secured entry of default by the clerk on
September 3, 2025. Docs. 9-10. Plaintiff now moves for default judgment. Doc. 11.
II. Default Judgment.
After default is entered by the clerk, the district court may enter default judgment
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(b). “When entry of judgment is sought
against a party who has failed to plead or otherwise defend,” such as here, “a district court
has an affirmative duty to look into its jurisdiction over both the subject matter and the
parties.” In re Tuli, 172 F.3d 707, 712 (9th Cir. 1999). Only after finding such
jurisdictional prerequisites are satisfied can the Court turn to the relevant factors as
enumerated in Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470 (9th Cir. 1986).
Plaintiff alleges diversity jurisdiction. Id. ¶ 3. For purposes of such jurisdiction, “a
limited liability company ‘is a citizen of every state of which its owners/members are
citizens.’” 3123 SMB LLC v. Horn, 880 F.3d 461, 465 (9th Cir. 2018) (quoting Johnson v.
Columbia Props. Anchorage, LP, 437 F.3d 894, 899 (9th Cir. 2006)). While Plaintiff
provides the citizenship of each member of its parent company, EPSFL, LLC, it fails to
account for the citizenship of its remaining members or verify no other member exists.
Doc. 7 at 2.1 Nor does Plaintiff provide any information about the citizenship of
Defendant’s members.2 The Court cannot conclude diversity jurisdiction exists and
summarily denies Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment. Plaintiff may re-file its motion
for default judgment and include a showing of diversity jurisdiction.
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment (Doc. 11) is denied.
Dated this 22nd day of October, 2025.
1 Plaintiff states “EPSFL, LLC is the parent company of [Plaintiff], owning 10% or more of
[Plaintiff’s] outstanding equity.” Id. It is unclear whether Plaintiff has other members beyond
EPSFL, LLC.
2 Plaintiff only states that “[Defendant’s] members were as follows: Lisa Ball aka Lisa Swansen.”
Doc. 1 ¶ 2.
Case 2:25-cv-02212-DGC Document 12 Filed 10/22/25 Page 2 of 2