By order filed August 19, 2021 ("August 19 Order"), the Court directed plaintiff Huobi Co., Ltd. ("Huobi") to show cause why the above-titled action should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Specifically, the Court found Huobi, a citizen of the Republic of Korea who asserts diversity jurisdiction exists over its state law claims against defendants, had failed to allege any facts to show the citizenship of three of the defendants, specifically, Marto HG Digital Asset Group, LLC ("MHG LLC"), Marto HG Digital Asset Group Fund I, GP, LLC ("MHG GP"), and Marto HG Digital Asset Group Fund I, LP ("MHG LP").1 Now before the Court is Huobi's "Response to Order Directing Plaintiff to Show Cause Why Action Should Not Be Dismissed for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction," filed September 3, 2021, as well as Huobi's First Amended Complaint ("FAC"), also filed September 3, 2021.

As noted in the August 19 Order, Huobi, to show the parties are diverse, must

1 The Court found Huobi sufficiently alleged it is diverse in citizenship from the remaining defendant, Taotao He, a citizen of New York.

In its response, Huobi identifies additional factual allegations it now includes in the FAC, and the Court finds those additional factual allegations are sufficient to show Huobi is diverse in citizenship from MGH LLC and MGH GP.

¶ 46 (alleging Huobi seeks to recover "not less than $2 million")), diversity jurisdiction exists only if all defendants are "citizens of a State."

Northern District of California United States District Court HG Digital Asset Group, LLC ("MHG LLC"), Marto HG Digital Asset Group Fund I, GP, LLC ("MHG GP"), and Marto HG Digital Asset Group Fund I, LP ("MHG LP") are deficient.

Accordingly, Huobi is hereby ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE, in writing and no later than September 3, 2021, why the above-titled action should not be dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Lastly, although Huobi's opposition to defendants' motion ordinarily would be due no later than August 30, 2021 (see Civil L.R.

7-3(a)), that deadline is hereby EXTENDED, Northern District of California United States District Court and the hearing date on defendants' motion, presently September 24, 2021, is hereby CONTINUED, the particular dates to be reset, if necessary, after resolution of the above- referenced jurisdictional issue.

Assignment is proper in this division of the Court because a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred in San Francisco County.

In January 2019, MHG announced that it had entered into a partnership with Marto Capital (“Marto”), a then-prominent investment firm spun out of industry giant Bridgewater Associates.

He represented to Mr. Guo via text message that he would agree to protect Huobi’s portfolio by contributing “inferiority assets” from MHG to a separate account designated to cover Huobi’s losses.

Mr. He’s commitment in writing to settle Plaintiff’s claims against him through payment of Plaintiff’s full loss amount – 38.91 Bitcoin – (the “Settlement Agreement”) constitutes a valid and enforceable written contract between Plaintiff and Defendants.

The CEMDA and the Settlement Agreement are valid and enforceable contracts between Plaintiff and MHG GP, sufficiently certain in their respective terms and with legally competent parties.