Nickless-Purcell v. The RMR Group LLC
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Cynthia Ann Bashant (author)
Analysis
The court ordered the defendant to identify the trustee(s) and citizenship of an LLC member, ABP Trust, to allow the court to confirm complete diversity jurisdiction. The court set a deadline of September 19, 2025, for the defendant to file an amended notice or a response on the docket.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Defendant is ordered to file an amended Notice of Party with Financial Interest or a response identifying the trustee(s) of ABP Trust and their citizenship.“The Court ORDERS Defendant to either file an amended Notice of Party with Financial Interest under Rule 7.1(a)(2) or file a response on the docket specifying (a) the trustee(s) of the ABP Trust as well as (b) the citizenship of the trustee(s) of the ABP Trust.” | agree with court The order correctly applies the rule that an LLC is a citizen of every state of which its members are citizens, and that a trust is a citizen of its trustee. Because the defendant's filings were inconsistent regarding the ownership of ABP Trust (a member of the LLC), the court cannot verify complete diversity without knowing the citizenship of the ultimate trustee(s). Requiring this information is a standard procedural step to resolve jurisdictional questions. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly identifies the legal standard for determining the citizenship of an LLC and its trust members. The court's request for clarification is necessary to exercise subject matter jurisdiction and complies with Rule 7.1. The reasoning is direct and supported by the cited authorities.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 BABETTE NICKLESS-PURCELL, Case No. 24-cv-01718-BAS-DTF 12 Plaintiff, ORDER REQUIRING DEFENDANT 13 v. TO IDENTIFY ABP TRUSTEE(S) AND CITIZENSHIP OF ABP 14 THE RMR GROUP LLC, TRUSTEE(S) 15 Defendant. 16 The Court is preparing to rule on Defendant The RMR Group LLC’s Motion to 17 Compel Arbitration. (ECF No. 5.) The Court’s analysis of its subject matter jurisdiction is 18 incomplete, however. 19 Defendant removed this case to federal court under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 diversity 20 jurisdiction. (ECF No. 1.) Defendant is a Limited Liability Company (“LLC”). “[A]n LLC 21 is a citizen of every state of which its owners/members are citizens.” Johnson v. Columbia 22 Props. Anchorage, LP, 437 F.3d 894, 899 (9th Cir. 2006). 23 In its Notice of Removal, Defendant listed ABP Trust as one of its LLC members. 24 (ECF No. 1.) Defendant’s subsequent Notice of Party with Financial Interest, however, 25 stated only that ABP Trust is “owned” by another trust. (ECF No. 2.) 26 Under Ninth Circuit case law, “[a] trust has the citizenship of its trustee or trustees.” 27 Johnson, 437 F.3d at 899 (citing Navarro Sav. Ass’n v. Lee, 446 U.S. 458 (1980)). Without 28 information on ABP Trust’s trustee(s) and the trustee(s)’ citizenship, the Court cannot 1 |}confirm complete diversity. Providing this information will also bring Defendant in 2 || compliance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 7.1(a)(2). 3 The Court ORDERS Defendant to either file an amended Notice of Party with 4 || Financial Interest under Rule 7.1(a)(2) or file a response on the docket specifying (a) the 5 || trustee(s) of the ABP Trust as well as (b) the citizenship of the trustee(s) of the ABP Trust. 6 || To emphasize, if a trust or another entity is the trustee of the ABP Trust, Defendant should 7 |\identify that trustee’s citizenship. The amendment or response shall be filed on or 8 || before Friday, September 19, 2025. 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. 10 ~ 11 || DATED: September 15, 2025 (yatta Bahar □□ D H n. Cynthia Bashant, Chief Judge United States District Court 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28