Gilbert Krupin LLC v. Catlin Specialty Insurance Company et al

Filing 6

MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THIS ACTION SHOULD NOT BE REMANDED FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION by Judge Dolly M. Gee. Response to Order to Show Cause due by 6/14/2013. SEE ORDER. (im)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL
Case No.

Date

CV 13-03753 DMG (RZx)

Title Gilbert Krupin LLC v. Catlin Specialty Insurance Co., et al.
Present: The Honorable

May 31, 2013
Page

1 of 2

DOLLY M. GEE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

VALENCIA VALLERY
Deputy Clerk

NOT REPORTED
Court Reporter

Attorneys Present for Plaintiff(s)
None Present

Attorneys Present for Defendant(s)
None Present

Proceedings: IN CHAMBERS—ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THIS ACTION
SHOULD NOT BE REMANDED FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER
JURISDICTION
On April 15, 2013, Plaintiff Gilbert Krupin LLC filed a Complaint in Los Angeles
County Superior Court against Defendants Catlin Specialty Insurance Company and Does 1
through 50. (Not. of Removal, Ex. A (“Compl.”) [Doc. # 1].) The Complaint raises exclusively
state law causes of action arising out of Catlin’s alleged failure to indemnify Plaintiff in a related
civil action. (Id.) The Complaint alleges that Plaintiff is a citizen of California, and that
Defendant Catlin is “a corporation duly organized and existing under the laws for the State of
California. (Compl. ¶¶ 2.) On May 24, 2013, Catlin filed a Notice of Removal to this Court.
Catlin alleges that, because it is wholly owned by Catlin, Inc., a Delaware corporation, it is a
citizen of Delaware and is thus completely diverse from Plaintiff. (Not. of Removal ¶ 6.)
To establish jurisdiction based on diversity of citizenship, Catlin must prove “complete
diversity between the parties,” namely, that each Defendant is a citizen of a different state than
Plaintiff. Diaz v. Davis, 549 F.3d 1223, 1234 (9th Cir. 2008) (citing Strawbridge v. Curtiss, 7
U.S. (3 Cranch) 267, 267, 2 L. Ed. 435 (1806)). Under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1), a corporation is
deemed “a citizenship of every State and foreign state by which it has been incorporated and of
the State or foreign state where it has its principal place of business.” The Supreme Court has
held that this jurisdictional rule is “unambiguous” and “is not amenable to judicial enlargement.”
Lincoln Prop. Co. v. Roche, 546 U.S. 81, 94, 126 S. Ct. 606, 616, 163 L. Ed. 2d 415 (2005).
Accordingly, that Catlin is wholly owned by a citizen of Delaware is irrelevant. Catlin is only a
citizen of Delaware if it is incorporated under Delaware law or has its principal place of business
there. Because the Complaint alleges that Catlin is incorporated in California, Catlin has not
borne its burden of establishing that diversity exists among the parties.1 See Geographic
1

Catlin has also failed to adequately plead Plaintiff’s citizenship. As a limited liability company, Plaintiff
is a citizen of every state of which its members or owners are citizens. See Johnson v. Columbia Props. Advantage,
LP, 437 F.3d 894, 899 (9th Cir. 2006). Defendant only pleads that Plaintiff is a California limited liability company
with its principal place of business in Beverly Hills, California. (Not. of Removal ¶ 7.)
CV-90

CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL

Initials of Deputy Clerk vv

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL
Case No.

CV 13-03753 DMG (RZx)

Title Gilbert Krupin LLC v. Catlin Specialty Insurance Co., et al.

Date

May 31, 2013
Page

2 of 2

Expeditions, Inc. v. Estate of Lhotka ex rel. Lhotka, 599 F.3d 1102, 1106-07 (9th Cir. 2010)
(removing party has the burden of demonstrating diversity).
There is a “strong presumption against removal jurisdiction,” and courts must reject it “if
there is any doubt as to the right of removal in the first instance.” Geographic Expeditions, Inc.,
599 F.3d at 1107 (quoting Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992) (per curiam))
(internal quotation marks omitted). Accordingly, Catlin is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE by
no later than June 14, 2013 why this action should not be remanded to Los Angeles Superior
Court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

CV-90

CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL

Initials of Deputy Clerk vv