Alex Blitstein v. Selene Finance, LP et al

Filing 6

MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS - COURT ORDER by Judge Percy Anderson remanding case to Los Angeles Superior Court, Case number LC105915. Case Terminated. Made JS-6. (mrgo)

JS-6

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

CV 17-5995 PA (AFMx)

Title

Alex Blitstein v. Selene Finance, LP, et al.

Present: The Honorable

Date

August 14, 2017

PERCY ANDERSON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Kamilla Sali-Suleyman

Not Reported

N/A

Deputy Clerk

Court Reporter

Tape No.

Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs:

Attorneys Present for Defendants:

None

None

Proceedings:

IN CHAMBERS - COURT ORDER

Before the Court is a Notice of Removal filed on August 11, 2017, by defendant Selene Finance,
LP (“Selene LP”). (Docket No. 1 (“NOR”).) Selene LP asserts that this Court has jurisdiction over the
action brought against it by plaintiff Alex Blitstein (“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 over only
those 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, 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 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).
To invoke this Court’s diversity jurisdiction, a 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). A person is domiciled in the place he resides with the intent to remain or to
which he intends to return. See Kanter v. Warner-Lambert Co., 265 F.3d 853, 857 (9th Cir. 2001). “A
person residing in a given state is not necessarily domiciled there, and thus is not necessarily a citizen of
that state.” Id. 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. 2002) (“[T]he relevant citizenship [of an LLC] for
diversity purposes is that of the members, not of the company . . . .”); Handelsman v. Bedford Vill.
Assocs., Ltd. P’ship, 213 F.3d 48, 51–52 (2d Cir. 2000) (“[A] limited liability company has the
CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 1 of 3

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

CV 17-5995 PA (AFMx)

Date

Title

August 14, 2017

Alex Blitstein v. Selene Finance, LP, et al.

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.”).
Here, to allege Plaintiff’s citizenship, the Notice of Removal asserts:
As alleged in the Complaint, Plaintiff “is, and at all times relevant to the
facts herein was, an individual residing in real property commonly known
as 18737 Hatteras Street, Unit 50, Tarzana, CA 91356 . . . located in the
County of Los Angeles, in the State of California.” [Complaint ¶ 1] Thus,
Plaintiff is a citizen of California for diversity purposes.
(NOR ¶ 3.) Because the only support for Selene LP’s allegation of Plaintiff’s citizenship is residence,
and an individual is not necessarily domiciled where he or she resides, Kanter, 265 F.3d 857, the Notice
of Removal’s allegations are insufficient to establish Plaintiff’s citizenship.
Furthermore, in an effort to establish its own citizenship, Selene LP alleges:
Selene is a foreign limited partnership . . . comprised of two partners:
1) Selene Ventures LLC, and 2) Selene Ventures GP LLP. Selene
Ventures LLC is a Delaware limited liability company and operates its
principal place of business in Pennsylvania. Selene Ventures GP LLC is a
Delaware limited liability company and operates its principal place of
business in Pennsylvania. No members of either of Selene’s partners is a
citizen of the states of California. Therefore, Selene is not a citizen of
California for diversity jurisdiction purposes.
(NOR ¶ 4.)
A defendant is presumed to know the facts surrounding its own citizenship. See, e.g., Leon v.
Gordon Trucking, Inc., 76 F. Supp. 3d 1055, 1063 (C.D. Cal. 2014); Cretian v. Job1USA, Inc., No. 09CV-770-ST, 2009 WL 4841039, at *1 (D. Or. Dec. 11, 2009) (“Defendant is presumed to know its own
citizenship; indeed it is in the best position to know it for purposes of removal.”). Because Selene LP
has not identified the citizenship of each of its members, it has not adequately alleged its own
citizenship. See Lindley Contours, LLC v. AABB Fitness Holdings, Inc., 414 F. App’x 62, 64 (9th Cir.
2011) (holding that an allegation that no member of a defendant LP “is an Oregon citizen,” without
identifying the actual state of citizenship of the LP’s members or whether the members were composed
of another layer of business entities, was insufficient to establish complete diversity); Teleflora LLC v.
WB Commerce, LLC, CV 15-07176 SJO (SHx), 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 152828, at *2 n.2 (C.D. Cal.
CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 2 of 3

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

CV 17-5995 PA (AFMx)

Date

Title

August 14, 2017

Alex Blitstein v. Selene Finance, LP, et al.

Nov. 10, 2015) (“[W]here the removing party is an LLC, it must allege the citizenship of each of its
members in order to meet its burden of showing complete diversity of citizenship between the parties.”);
see also Kanter, 265 F.3d at 857 (“Absent unusual circumstances, a party seeking to invoke diversity
jurisdiction should be able to allege affirmatively the actual citizenship of the relevant parties.”).
Because the Notice of Removal does not adequately allege the citizenship of Plaintiff or of
Selene LP, Selene LP has failed to demonstrate that complete diversity exists.
For the foregoing reasons, Selene LP has failed to meet its burden of establishing the Court’s
diversity jurisdiction. Accordingly, the Court remands this action to Los Angeles Superior Court, Case
No. LC105915. See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).
IT IS SO ORDERED.

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 3 of 3