Jopen LLC v. Guthery

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 JOPEN, LLC, Case No.: 21cv1233-L-BGS 11 Plaintiff, ORDER REMANDING ACTION TO 12 v. STATE COURT 13 SEBASTIAN GUTHERY, et al., 14 Defendants. 15 16 Defendants removed this breach of contract action from State court pursuant to 28 17 U.S.C. §§1332 and 1441. For the reasons stated below, the action is remanded. 18 "Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. They possess only that power 19 authorized by Constitution or statute, which is not to be expanded by judicial decree. It is 20 to be presumed that a cause lies outside this limited jurisdiction, and the burden of 21 establishing the contrary rests upon the party asserting jurisdiction." Kokkonen v. 22 Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994) (citations omitted). Consistent 23 with the limited jurisdiction of federal courts, the removal statute is strictly construed 24 against removal. Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992). The burden of 25 establishing removal jurisdiction is on the removing party. See Abrego Abrego v. The 26 Dow Chem. Co., 443 F.3d 676, 682-85 (9th Cir. 2006). 27 “[A]ny civil action brought in a State court of which the district courts of the 28 United States have original jurisdiction, may be removed . . ..” 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). 1 ||Defendant’s notice of removal is based on 28 U.S.C. $1332. Under section 1332(a), 2 || original jurisdiction exists in cases where the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 and 3 || the case is "between citizens of different states." To meet the requirement of diversity of 4 citizenship, Defendant must show "complete diversity of citizenship." Caterpillar, Inc. v. 5 || Lewis, 519 U.S. 61, 68 (1996). This requirement is met when "the citizenship of each 6 || plaintiff is diverse from the citizenship of each defendant." Jd. 7 The removing party is required to allege diversity, which includes "alleg[ing] 8 || affirmatively the actual citizenship of the relevant parties." Kanter v. Warner-Lambert, 9 || 265 F.3d 853, 857 (9" Cir. 2001). Defendants allege that Plaintiff is a limited liability 10 |}company, “duly formed and headquartered in the State of Texas,” Defendant Guthery is 11 natural person and a citizen of the State of California,” and Defendant Nine2Five, LLC 12 || (“Nine2Five’’) “is a limited liability company duly formed in the State of Nevada.” 13 || (Notice of Removal, ECF no. 1, 3.) Because Plaintiff and Nine2Five are limited liability 14 || companies, their citizenship is determined by examining the citizenship of each of their 15 ||members. Carden v. Arkoma Assoc., 494 U.S. 185, 195-96 (1990); Johnson v. Columbia 16 || Properties Anchorage. L.P., 437 F.3d 894, 899 (9 Cir. 2006). The Notice of Removal 17 || does not provide any information regarding the membership of either of the two limited 18 || liability companies. Accordingly, Defendants have not met their burden affirmatively to 19 || allege the citizenship of all parties. The Notice of Removal fails to establish federal 20 || jurisdiction. 21 "If at any time before final judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject 22 matter jurisdiction, the case shall be remanded." 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). This action is 23 || therefore remanded to the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Diego. 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. 25 Dated: July 13, 2021 1 fee fp 07 H . James Lorenz, 38 United States District Judge