Hanley et al v. Doctors Express Franchising, LLC et al
Filing
18
ORDER signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr. on 11/17/11 ORDERING that since the removant has failed to show diversity of citizenshipremoval jurisdiction, this case is REMANDED to the Superior Court of theCounty of Sacramento as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). Copy of remand order sent to other court. CASE CLOSED (Benson, A.)
<![CDATA[
1
2
3
4
5
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
6
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
7
8
RAYMOND HANLEY; MARSHA HANLEY;
HANLEY LIMITED PARTNERS, LLC,
9
Plaintiffs,
10
11
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
v.
13
DOCTORS EXPRESS FRANCHISING,
LLC; RHINO 7 CONSULTING COMPANY;
and DOES 1 through 25,
inclusive,
14
Defendants.
________________________________
12
2:11-cv-02682-GEB-EFB
ORDER*
15
16
Pending are motions for dismissal of Plaintiff’s Complaint.
17
However, since this case was removed from state court by Defendant
18
Doctors Express Franchising, LLC (“Doctors Express”) on the basis of
19
diversity removal jurisdiction which has not been shown to exist, this
20
case will be remanded to the state court from which it was removed.
21
“There is a strong presumption against removal jurisdiction,
22
and the removing party has the burden of establishing that removal is
23
proper.” Lindley Contours, LLC v. AABB Fitness Holdings, Inc., 2011 WL
24
398861,
25
omitted). Doctors Express has not sufficiently alleged the citizenship
26
of all owners/members of Plaintiff Hanley Limited Partners, LLC or
at
*1
(9th
Cir.
Feb.
8,
2011)
(internal
quotation
marks
27
28
*
argument.
This matter is deemed suitable for decision without oral
E.D. Cal. R. 230(g).
1
1
Defendant Doctors Express Franchising, LLC. “For purposes of diversity
2
jurisdiction, . . . a limited liability corporation is a citizen of all
3
of the states of which its owners/members are citizens. . . . [T]he
4
citizenship of all members of limited liability corporations . . .
5
[must] be alleged.” Id.
6
Since the removant has failed to show diversity of citizenship
7
removal jurisdiction, this case is remanded to the Superior Court of the
8
County of Sacramento as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).
9
Dated:
November 17, 2011
10
11
12
GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.
United States District Judge
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
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?
