Yvonne Napoleon v. XO Communications et al

Filing 10

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION by Judge Beverly Reid O'Connell. Defendant is ORDERED to show cause as to why this case shouldnot be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. An appropriate response will: (1) include an explanation of the citizenship of XO Communications Services, LLC; and, (2) properly identify and indicate the citizenship of each of the limited liability companies, partnerships, and corporations that are involved in the ownership chain of XO Communications, LLC. Defendants shall file their response to this Order no later than Friday, October 14, 2016, at 4:00 p.m. (rfi)

LINK:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
Case No.

CV 16-07286 BRO (AGRx)

Title

YVONNE NAPOLEON V. XO COMMUNICATIONS ET AL.

Date

October 11, 2016

Present: The Honorable

BEVERLY REID O’CONNELL, United States District Judge

Renee A. Fisher

Not Present

N/A

Deputy Clerk

Court Reporter

Tape No.

Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs:

Attorneys Present for Defendants:

Not Present

Not Present

Proceedings:

(IN CHAMBERS)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
RE SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION

Plaintiff Yvonne Napoleon (“Plaintiff”) brought this action in the Superior Court
of California, County of Los Angeles, on August 23, 2016. (See Dkt. No. 1-1.)
Defendants XO Communications,1 XO Communications Services, LLC, and XO
Communications, LLC (collectively, “Defendants”) removed the action to this Court on
September 28, 2016, invoking this Court’s diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§§ 1332 and 1441. (Dkt. No. 1 (hereinafter, “Removal”).)
A federal court must determine its own jurisdiction, even where there is no
objection to it. Rains v. Criterion Sys., Inc., 80 F.3d 339, 342 (9th Cir. 1996). Because
federal courts are of limited jurisdiction, they possess original jurisdiction only as
authorized by the Constitution and federal statute. See Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins.
Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). Further, “[t]he ‘strong presumption’ against
removal jurisdiction means that the defendant always has the burden of establishing that
removal is proper.” Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992).

1

Defendant XO Communications has not appeared in this matter.

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

Page 1 of 3

LINK:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
Case No.

CV 16-07286 BRO (AGRx)

Title

YVONNE NAPOLEON V. XO COMMUNICATIONS ET AL.

Date

October 11, 2016

Under § 1332, the Court has federal subject matter jurisdiction so long as all
plaintiffs are diverse from all defendants and the amount in controversy is, at minimum,
$75,000. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). Here, Defendants’ Removal sufficiently alleges that
Plaintiff is a California resident and that the amount in controversy is at least
$132,208.27. (See Removal ¶¶ 12, 16.) However, Defendants’ allegations regarding
their own citizenship is not satisfactory. First, in their Removal, Defendants do not
adequately indicate the citizenship of XO Communications Services, LLC, as they only
state in a conclusory manner that it is not a citizen or resident of California.2 (See
Removal ¶ 13.) In addition, Defendants provide only conclusory information regarding
the citizenship of XO Communications, LLC. (See id.) Defendants explain that XO
Communications, LLC is at the bottom of lengthy ownership chain of other limited
liability companies, partnerships, and corporations3; however, Defendants provide only
conclusory information as to the majority of the companies higher in its ownership chain.
(Id.) For instance, Defendants explain that XO Holdings, one partnership in the chain, is
“owned and controlled by other intermediary limited liability companies.” (Id.)
Defendants do not indicate the names of these other companies or how many of these
companies there are. (See id.) Though Defendants claim that these companies are owned
by other corporations and limited liability companies and summarily provides the Court
with the citizenship of those companies, the Court finds the information that Defendants
have provided is insufficient to adequately determine XO Communications, LLC’s
citizenship for jurisdictional purposes.

2

 It appears there may have been a typographical error in Defendants’ Removal as paragraph 13 begins
with “LLC’s sole member . . . .” (See Removal ¶ 13.) The Court makes no assumptions as to what
information Defendants intended to include.

3

An LLC’s citizenship is determined by the citizenship of its members. See Johnson v. Columbia
Props. Anchorage, LP, 437 F.3d 894, 902 (9th Cir. 2006). Similarly, a partnership’s citizenship is also
determined by the citizenship of its members. See id. at 899. A corporation, however, is the citizen of
the state(s) in which it is incorporated and in which it has its principal place of business. See Hertz
Corp. v. Friend, 559 U.S. 77, 88 (2010).
CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

Page 2 of 3

LINK:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
Case No.

CV 16-07286 BRO (AGRx)

Title

YVONNE NAPOLEON V. XO COMMUNICATIONS ET AL.

Date

October 11, 2016

Accordingly, Defendant is ORDERED to show cause as to why this case should
not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. An appropriate response will:
(1) include an explanation of the citizenship of XO Communications Services, LLC; and,
(2) properly identify and indicate the citizenship of each of the limited liability
companies, partnerships, and corporations that are involved in the ownership chain of XO
Communications, LLC. Defendants shall file their response to this Order no later than
Friday, October 14, 2016, at 4:00 p.m.

:

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Initials of Preparer

rf

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

Page 3 of 3