Alexander A. Millanian v. BMW of North America, LLC et al

Filing 13

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY ACTION SHOULD NOT BE REMANDED FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION by Judge John F. Walter. Defendant is hereby ordered to show cause, in writing, no later than January 13, 2017, why this action should not be remanded to L os Angeles Superior Court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. No oral argument on this matter will be heard unless otherwise ordered by the Court. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 78; Local Rule 7-15. The Order will stand submitted upon the filing of the response to the Order to Show Cause. Failure to respond to the Order to Show Cause will result in the remand of this action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. IT IS SO ORDERED. (jloz)

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

CV 16-9161-JFW (PLAx)

Title:

Alexander A. Millanian -v- BMW of North America, LLC, et al.

Date: January 11, 2017

PRESENT:
HONORABLE JOHN F. WALTER, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Shannon Reilly
Courtroom Deputy

None Present
Court Reporter

ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR PLAINTIFFS:
None
PROCEEDINGS (IN CHAMBERS):

ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR DEFENDANTS:
None

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY ACTION SHOULD
NOT BE REMANDED FOR LACK OF SUBJECT
MATTER JURISDICTION

On October 28, 2016, Plaintiff Alexander A. Millanian (“Plaintiff”) filed a Complaint against
Defendant BMW of North America, LLC (“Defendant”) in Los Angeles Superior Court. On
December 12, 2016, Defendant filed a Notice of Removal, alleging that this Court has jurisdiction
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a).
Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, having subject matter jurisdiction only over
matters authorized by the Constitution and Congress. See Bender v. Williamsport Area School
District, 475 U.S. 534, 541 (1986). “Because of the Congressional purpose to restrict the
jurisdiction of the federal courts on removal, the statute is strictly construed, and federal jurisdiction
must be rejected if there is any doubt as to the right of removal in the first instance.” Duncan v.
Stuetzle, 76 F.3d 1480, 1485 (9th Cir. 1996) (citations and quotations omitted). There is a strong
presumption that the Court is without jurisdiction unless the contrary affirmatively appears. See
Fifty Associates v. Prudential Insurance Company of America, 446 F.2d 1187, 1190 (9th Cir.
1990). As the party invoking federal jurisdiction, Defendant bears the burden of demonstrating that
removal is proper. See, e.g., Gaus v. Miles, 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992); Emrich v. Touche
Ross & Co., 846 F.2d 1190, 1195 (9th Cir. 1988).
Diversity jurisdiction founded under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) requires that (1) all plaintiffs be of
different citizenship than all defendants, and (2) the amount in controversy exceed $75,000. See
28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). A limited liability company is a citizen of every state of which its members are
citizens. See, e.g., Johnson v. Columbia Properties Anchorage, LP, 437 F.3d 894, 899 (9th Cir.
2006) (“[L]ike a partnership, an LLC is a citizen of every state of which its owners/members are
citizens.”). Although Defendant alleged in the Notice of Removal that it is a limited liability company,
Defendant failed to allege the citizenship of any of its members.
Page 1 of 2

Initials of Deputy Clerk sr

Accordingly, Defendant is hereby ordered to show cause, in writing, no later than January
13, 2017, why this action should not be remanded to Los Angeles Superior Court for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction. No oral argument on this matter will be heard unless otherwise ordered
by the Court. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 78; Local Rule 7-15. The Order will stand submitted upon the
filing of the response to the Order to Show Cause. Failure to respond to the Order to Show Cause
will result in the remand of this action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Page 2 of 2

Initials of Deputy Clerk sr