Pfeffer v. Regal Entertainment, Inc.
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Myron James Lorenz (author)
Analysis
Defendants removed a personal injury action to federal court based on diversity jurisdiction, but failed to affirmatively allege the citizenship of the members of one defendant, which is a limited liability company. The court ordered the case remanded to state court because the removing party did not meet its burden of establishing complete diversity.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Remand to state court“This action is therefore remanded to the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Diego.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the strict construction of removal statutes and the burden on the removing party to affirmatively establish jurisdiction. Specifically, the court correctly identified that for a limited liability company, citizenship is determined by the citizenship of its members. Because the Notice of Removal failed to provide this information, the court was correct to find that the burden was not met and to remand the case. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally and substantively sound. It correctly identifies the legal standard for removal jurisdiction, the burden of proof, and the specific requirement for establishing the citizenship of a limited liability company. The application of these rules to the facts presented in the Notice of Removal (the failure to allege member citizenship) leads directly to the conclusion that jurisdiction was not established. No significant arguments or authorities were omitted.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 CAROL PFEFFER, Case No.: 22cv0064-L-MDD 11 Plaintiff, ORDER REMANDING ACTION TO 12 v. STATE COURT 13 REGAL ENTERTAINMENT, INC; REGAL CINEMAS, INC. et al., 14 Defendants. 15 16 Defendants removed this personal injury 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 28 1 “[A]ny civil action brought in a State court of which the district courts of the 2 United States have original jurisdiction, may be removed . . ..” 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). 3 Defendant’s notice of removal is based on 28 U.S.C. §1332. Under section 1332(a), 4 original jurisdiction exists in cases where the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 and 5 the case is "between citizens of different states." To meet the requirement of diversity of 6 citizenship, Defendant must show "complete diversity of citizenship." Caterpillar, Inc. v. 7 Lewis, 519 U.S. 61, 68 (1996). This requirement is met when "the citizenship of each 8 plaintiff is diverse from the citizenship of each defendant." Id. 9 The removing party is required to allege diversity, which includes "alleg[ing] 10 affirmatively the actual citizenship of the relevant parties." Kanter v. Warner-Lambert, 11 265 F.3d 853, 857 (9th Cir. 2001). Defendants claim that Plaintiff is a resident of 12 California. (Notice of Removal, ECF no. 1.) Defendants claim that Regal Cinemas, Inc. 13 is a limited liability company, “registered in Tennessee, with a principal place of business 14 in Knoxville, Tennessee.” (Id.) Because Defendant Regal Cinemas, Inc. is a limited 15 liability company, its citizenship is determined by examining the citizenship of each of 16 their members. Carden v. Arkoma Assoc., 494 U.S. 185, 195-96 (1990); Johnson v. 17 Columbia Properties Anchorage. L.P., 437 F.3d 894, 899 (9th Cir. 2006). The Notice of 18 Removal does not provide any information regarding the membership of the limited 19 liability company. Accordingly, Defendants have not met their burden affirmatively to 20 allege the citizenship of all parties. The Notice of Removal fails to establish federal 21 jurisdiction. 22 // 23 // 24 // 25 // 26 // 27 // 28 1 "If at any time before final judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject 2 matter jurisdiction, the case shall be remanded." 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). This action is 3 || therefore remanded to the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Diego. 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 || Dated: January 20, 2022 1 fee fp 7 H . James Lorenz, United States District Judge 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28