Jasmine Sperling v. G2 Secure Staff, LLC

Filing 11

MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS - COURT ORDER by Judge Percy Anderson remanding case to Los Angeles County Superior Court, Case number BC665261. Case Terminated. Made JS-6. (mrgo)

JS-6

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

CV 17-5319 PA (AGRx)

Title

Jasmine Sperling v. G2 Secure Staff, LLC

Present: The Honorable

Date

July 20, 2017

PERCY ANDERSON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Kamilla Sali-Suleyman

Not Reported

N/A

Deputy Clerk

Court Reporter

Tape No.

Attorneys Present for Plaintiff:

Attorneys Present for Defendant:

None

None

Proceedings:

IN CHAMBERS - COURT ORDER

Before the Court is a Notice of Removal filed by defendant G2 Secure Staff, LLC (“Defendant”)
on July 19, 2017. Defendant asserts that this Court has jurisdiction over the action brought against it by
plaintiff Jasmine Sperling (“Plaintiff”) based on the Court’s diversity jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. §
1332.
Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, having subject matter jurisdiction only over
matters authorized by the Constitution and Congress. See, e.g., Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 511
U.S. 375, 377, 114 S. Ct. 1673, 1675, 128 L. Ed. 2d 391 (1994). A suit filed in state court may be
removed to federal court if the federal court would have had original jurisdiction over the suit. 28
U.S.C. § 1441(a). A removed action must be remanded to state court if the federal court lacks subject
matter jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). “The burden of establishing federal jurisdiction is on the party
seeking removal, and the removal statute is strictly construed against removal jurisdiction.” Prize Frize,
Inc. v. Matrix (U.S.) Inc., 167 F.3d 1261, 1265 (9th Cir. 1999). “Federal jurisdiction must be rejected if
there is any doubt as to the right of removal in the first instance.” Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566
(9th Cir. 1992).
In attempting to invoke this Court’s diversity jurisdiction, Defendant must prove that there is
complete diversity of citizenship between the parties and that the amount in controversy exceeds
$75,000. 28 U.S.C. § 1332. To establish citizenship for diversity purposes, a natural person must be a
citizen of the United States and be domiciled in a particular state. Kantor v. Wellesley Galleries, Ltd.,
704 F.2d 1088, 1090 (9th Cir. 1983). Persons are domiciled in the places they reside with the intent to
remain or to which they intend to return. See Kanter v. Warner-Lambert Co., 265 F.3d 853, 857 (9th
Cir. 2001). For the purposes of diversity jurisdiction, a corporation is a citizen of any state where it is
incorporated and of the state where it has its principal place of business. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c); see also
Indus. Tectonics, Inc. v. Aero Alloy, 912 F.2d 1090, 1092 (9th Cir. 1990). The citizenship of an LLC is
the citizenship of its members. See Johnson v. Columbia Props. 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.”); Marseilles Hydro Power, LLC v. Marseilles Land & Water Co., 299 F.3d 643, 652 (7th Cir.

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 1 of 3

JS-6

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

CV 17-5319 PA (AGRx)

Date

Title

July 20, 2017

Jasmine Sperling v. G2 Secure Staff, LLC

2002) (“the relevant citizenship [of an LLC] for diversity purposes is that of the members, not of the
company”); Handelsman v. Bedford Village Assocs., Ltd. P’ship, 213 F.3d 48, 51-52 (2d Cir. 2000) (“a
limited liability company has the citizenship of its membership”); Cosgrove v. Bartolotta, 150 F.3d 729,
731 (7th Cir. 1998); TPS Utilicom Servs., Inc. v. AT & T Corp., 223 F. Supp. 2d 1089, 1101 (C.D. Cal.
2002) (“A limited liability company . . . is treated like a partnership for the purpose of establishing
citizenship under diversity jurisdiction”).
The Notice of Removal alleges that “Defendant is informed and believes that Plaintiff is a citizen
of the State of California and is domiciled in the County of Los Angeles, California, and was so
domiciled at the time of the filing of the Complaint. See Complaint, ¶ 1; Declaration of Julia Gostic in
Support of Removal (‘Gostic Decl.’) at ¶ 9.” (Notice of Removal ¶ 6.) The Notice of Removal does not
include the page of the Complaint that includes paragraph 1 or any allegation concerning Plaintiff’s
domicile or citizenship. The Gostic Declaration only alleges that, “[b]ased upon my review of corporate
records, Plaintiff Jasmine Sperling’s last known home address indicates he [sic] resides in Los Angeles,
California.” (Gostic Decl. ¶ 9.) Because the only support for Defendant’s allegation of Plaintiff’s
citizenship or domicile is based on information and belief and evidence of Plaintiff’s residence, and
residence is not the same as citizenship, the Notice of Removal’s allegations are insufficient to establish
Plaintiff’s citizenship. “Absent unusual circumstances, a party seeking to invoke diversity jurisdiction
should be able to allege affirmatively the actual citizenship of the relevant parties.” Kanter, 265 F.3d at
857; Bradford v. Mitchell Bros. Truck Lines, 217 F. Supp. 525, 527 (N.D. Cal. 1963) (“A petition [for
removal] alleging diversity of citizenship upon information and belief is insufficient.”). As a result,
Defendant’s allegations related to Plaintiff’s citizenship are insufficient to invoke this Court’s diversity
jurisdiction.
The Notice of Removal also does not properly allege the citizenship of Defendant. Specifically,
the Notice of Removal alleges that Defendant “has only seven members . . . all of whom are residents of
the state of Texas. Gostic Decl. ¶ 7.” Again, residence is not the same as citizenship. See Kanter, 265
F.3d at 857. The Gostic Declaration, upon which the Notice of Removal relies, alleges only that the
members of Defendant “reside in Texas.” (Gostic Decl. ¶ 7.) A defendant is presumed to know the facts
surrounding its own citizenship. See, e.g., Dugdale v. Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co., No. Civ. A. 4:05
CV 138, 2006 WL 335628, at *5 (E.D. Va. Feb. 14, 2006) (“[A]lthough . . . a defendant need not
investigate a plaintiff’s citizenship, certainly a defendant is responsible for knowing its own citizenship,
and could not ignore such only to later claim that subsequent documents revealed to the defendant its
own citizenship.”); Day v. Zimmer, Inc., 636 F. Supp. 451, 453 (N.D.N.Y. 1986) (finding that, even if
plaintiff misidentifies a defendant’s address, “obviously defendant is in the best position to know its
residence for diversity purposes”). As a result, Defendant’s allegations concerning its own citizenship
are insufficient to invoke this Court’s diversity jurisdiction. See Kanter, 265 F.3d at 857.

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 2 of 3

JS-6

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

CV 17-5319 PA (AGRx)

Date

Title

July 20, 2017

Jasmine Sperling v. G2 Secure Staff, LLC

For the foregoing reasons, Defendant has failed to satisfy its burden of showing that diversity
jurisdiction exists over this action. Accordingly, this action is hereby remanded to Los Angeles County
Superior Court, Case No. BC665261, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).
IT IS SO ORDERED.

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 3 of 3