VX119 Media Capital, LLC v. Outlook Enterprises LLC et al

Filing 17

MINUTE (IN CHAMBERS): ORDER REMANDING ACTION TO LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT by Judge John F. Walter: Defendants have failed to allege the citizenship of any of the members of Plaintiff or Outlook. Accordingly, this action is REMANDED to Los Angeles Superior Court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. (Made JS-6 Case Terminated.) (jp)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JS-6

CIVIL MINUTES -- GENERAL
Case No.

CV 17-3786-JFW(MRWx)

Title:

VX119 Media Capital, LLC -v- Outlook Enterprises, LLC, et al.

Date: May 25, 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 REMANDING ACTION TO LOS ANGELES
SUPERIOR COURT

On March 20, 2017, Plaintiff VXII9 Media Capital, LLC (“Plaintiff”) filed a Complaint against
Defendants Outlook Enterprises, LLC (“Outlook”) and Trevor Pryce (“Mr. Pryce”) (collectively,
“Defendants”) in Los Angeles Superior Court. On May 19, 2017, Defendants 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 parties invoking federal jurisdiction, Defendants bear 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. For the purposes of diversity jurisdiction, 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.”). “Absent unusual circumstances, a party seeking
to invoke diversity jurisdiction should be able to allege affirmatively the actual citizenship of the
relevant parties.” Kanter v. Warner-Lambert Co., 265 F.3d 853, 857 (9th Cir. 2001). Although both
Page 1 of 2

Initials of Deputy Clerk sr

Plaintiff and Outlook are apparently limited liability companies, Defendants have failed to allege the
citizenship of any of the members of Plaintiff or Outlook.
Accordingly, this action is REMANDED to Los Angeles Superior Court for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Page 2 of 2

Initials of Deputy Clerk sr