SEM Soccer Entertainment Mangement Corporation v. J.A. Masters Events, LLC et al

1
3:25-cv-00229-WQH-VET
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
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SEM SOCCER ENTERTAINMENT
MANAGEMENT CORPORATION, a
Massachusetts Corporation,
Plaintiff,
v.
J.A. MASTERS EVENTS, LLC, a
California Limited Liability Company;
JEFFERSON CASTRO, an individual and
sole manager of J.A. Masters Events,
LLC; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive,
Defendants.
Case No.: 3:25-cv-00229-WQH-VET
ORDER
HAYES, Judge:
On January 31, 2025, Plaintiff SEM Soccer Entertainment Management Corporation
(“Plaintiff”) filed a Complaint against Defendants J.A. Masters Events, LLC (“JAME
LLC”) and Jefferson Castro (“Castro”). (Complaint, ECF No. 1.)
On May 21, 2025, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause requiring Plaintiff to
file proof of service as to Defendants JAME LLC and Castro. (ECF No. 3.) On the
Case 3:25-cv-00229-WQH-VET Document 12 Filed 02/27/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 1 of 3

2
3:25-cv-00229-WQH-VET
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
following day, Plaintiff filed proof of service of summons on Defendant JAME LLC. (ECF
No. 4.)
On July 7, 2025, the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant Castro for
failure to effectuate service of process. (ECF No. 5.)
On August 13, 2025, Plaintiff filed an Application for Entry of Default against
Defendant JAME LLC. (ECF No. 6.) On August 15, 2025, the Clerk of Court entered
default as to Defendant JAME LLC. (ECF No. 7.)
On October 20, 2025, the Court ordered Plaintiff to file its Motion for Default
Judgment against Defendant JAME LLC no later than November 3, 2025. (ECF No. 10.)
On November 5, 2025, Plaintiff filed the pending Motion for Default Judgment
against Defendant JAME LLC. (ECF No. 11.)
The Court must determine whether it may exercise subject matter jurisdiction over
this action before granting default judgment. “When entry of judgment is sought against a
party who has failed to plead or otherwise defend, 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). Diversity jurisdiction requires complete diversity of
citizenship among the parties and an amount in controversy exceeding $75,000. 28 U.S.C.
§ 1332(a). For purposes of determining diversity jurisdiction, “an LLC is a citizen of every
state of which its owners/members are citizens.” Johnson v. Columbia Props. Anchorage,
LP, 437 F.3d 894, 899 (9th Cir. 2006).
Here, Plaintiff contends that the Court may exercise diversity jurisdiction over this
action. (Compl. ¶ 2.) Plaintiff alleges that it is “a Massachusetts domestic for-profit
corporation,” and that Defendant JAME LLC is “a California limited liability company,”
of which Defendant Castro is the “sole member and sole manager.” Id. ¶¶ 4–6. Plaintiff
does not, however, allege the citizenship of Defendant Castro. Without allegations
Case 3:25-cv-00229-WQH-VET Document 12 Filed 02/27/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 2 of 3

3
3:25-cv-00229-WQH-VET
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
regarding the citizenship of Defendant JAME LLC’s sole member, the Court is unable to
determine its citizenship for the purposes of assessing diversity jurisdiction.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff shall file a response to this Order within
(30) days of its filing that provides sufficient information for the Court to determine the
citizenship of Defendant J.A. Masters Events, LLC. If Plaintiff fails to do so, the Court will
dismiss this action without prejudice.
Dated: March 1, 2026
Case 3:25-cv-00229-WQH-VET Document 12 Filed 02/27/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 3 of 3