Kimbeau Marve v. US Bankcorp et al
Filing
5
MINUTES OF IN CHAMBERS - COURT ORDER by Judge Percy Anderson: Removing Defendant US Bancorp has failed to meet its burden to demonstrate the Court's diversity jurisdiction. Accordingly, the Court remands this action to Los Angeles Superior Court, Case No. GC049173. ( Case Terminated. Made JS-6 ) Court Reporter: Not Reported. (Attachments: # 1 CV-103 Remand Transmittal Letter) (gk)
<![CDATA[
JS-6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.
CV 12-3733 PA (JCx)
Title
Kimbeau Marve v. US Bancorp, et al.
Present: The
Honorable
Date
May 2, 2012
PERCY ANDERSON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Paul Songco
Not Reported
N/A
Deputy Clerk
Court Reporter
Tape No.
Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs:
Attorneys Present for Defendants:
None
None
Proceedings:
IN CHAMBERS - COURT ORDER
Before the Court is a Notice of Removal filed on April 30, 2012 by defendant US Bancorp
(“Removing Defendant”). Removing Defendant asserts that this Court has jurisdiction over the action
brought against it and defendant Lex Special Assets, LLC (“Lex”) by plaintiff Kimbeau Marve
(“Plaintiff”) based on the Court’s diversity jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332.
Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, having subject matter jurisdiction only over
matters authorized by the Constitution and Congress. See, e.g., Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co.,
511 U.S. 375, 377, 114 S. Ct. 1673, 1675, 128 L. Ed. 2d 391 (1994). A suit filed in state court may be
removed to federal court if the federal court would have had original jurisdiction over the suit. 28
U.S.C. § 1441(a). A removed action must be remanded to state court if the federal court lacks subject
matter jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). “The burden of establishing federal jurisdiction is on the party
seeking removal, and the removal statute is strictly construed against removal jurisdiction.” Prize Frize,
Inc. v. Matrix (U.S.) Inc., 167 F.3d 1261, 1265 (9th Cir. 1999). “Federal jurisdiction must be rejected if
there is any doubt as to the right of removal in the first instance.” Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564,
566 (9th Cir. 1992).
In attempting to invoke this Court’s diversity jurisdiction, Removing Defendant must prove that
there is complete diversity of citizenship between the parties and that the amount in controversy exceeds
$75,000. 28 U.S.C. § 1332. The citizenship of an LLP is the citizenship of its members. See Johnson
v. Columbia Props. Anchorage, LP, 437 F.3d 894, 899 (9th Cir. 2006) (“[L]ike a partnership, an LLC is
a citizen of every state of which its owners/members are citizens.”); Marseilles Hydro Power, LLC v.
Marseilles Land & Water Co., 299 F.3d 643, 652 (7th Cir. 2002) (“the relevant citizenship [of an LLC]
for diversity purposes is that of the members, not of the company”); Handelsman v. Bedford Village
Assocs., Ltd. P’ship, 213 F.3d 48, 51-52 (2d Cir. 2000) (“a limited liability company has the citizenship
of its membership”); Cosgrove v. Bartolotta, 150 F.3d 729, 731 (7th Cir. 1998); TPS Utilicom Servs.,
Inc. v. AT & T Corp., 223 F. Supp. 2d 1089, 1101 (C.D. Cal. 2002) (“A limited liability company . . . is
treated like a partnership for the purpose of establishing citizenship under diversity jurisdiction”). To
establish citizenship for diversity purposes, a natural person must be a citizen of the United States and
be domiciled in a particular state. Kantor v. Wellesley Galleries, Ltd., 704 F.2d 1088, 1090 (9th Cir.
CV-90 (06/04)
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Page 1 of 2
JS-6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.
CV 12-3733 PA (JCx)
Date
Title
May 2, 2012
Kimbeau Marve v. US Bancorp, et al.
1983). Persons are domiciled in the places they reside with the intent to remain or to which they intend
to return. See Kanter v. Warner-Lambert Co., 265 F.3d 853, 857 (9th Cir. 2001). “A person residing in
a given state is not necessarily domiciled there, and thus is not necessarily a citizen of that state.” Id.
For the purposes of diversity jurisdiction, a corporation is a citizen of any state where it is incorporated
and of the state where it has its principal place of business. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c); see also Indus.
Tectonics, Inc. v. Aero Alloy, 912 F.2d 1090, 1092 (9th Cir. 1990).
For purposes of establishing the citizenship of Lex, the Notice of Removal alleges that Lex “is,
and was at the time of filing of this Action, incorporated under the laws of the state of Delaware . . . with
its principal place of business in New York.” (Notice of Removal 3:12-14.). Removing Defendant has
not alleged the citizenship of each of Lex’s members. “Absent unusual circumstances, a party seeking
to invoke diversity jurisdiction should be able to allege affirmatively the actual citizenship of the
relevant parties.” Kanter, 265 F.3d at 857; Bradford v. Mitchell Bros. Truck Lines, 217 F. Supp. 525,
527 (N.D. Cal. 1963) (“A petition [for removal] alleging diversity of citizenship upon information and
belief is insufficient.”). Instead, Removing Defendant appears to be alleging Lex’s citizenship as if it
were a corporation. As a result, Removing Defendant’s allegations concerning Lex’s citizenship are
insufficient to invoke this Court’s diversity jurisdiction.
For all of the foregoing reasons, Removing Defendant has failed to meet its burden to
demonstrate the Court’s diversity jurisdiction. Accordingly, the Court remands this action to Los
Angeles Superior Court, Case No. GC049173. See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
CV-90 (06/04)
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Page 2 of 2
]]>
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?
