Samie Garakani v. Costco Wholesale Corporation

Filing 10

MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS by Judge Percy Anderson. 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. BC678979, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Case remanded to Los Angeles Superior Court, Case number BC678979. Case Terminated. Made JS-6 (lom)

JS-6

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

CV 17-8612 PA (PJWx)

Title

Samie Garakani v. Costco Wholesale Corp.

Present: The Honorable

Date

December 7, 2017

PERCY ANDERSON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Renee Fisher

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 Costco Wholesale Corporation
(“Defendant”) on November 29, 2017. Defendant asserts that this Court has jurisdiction over the action
brought against it by plaintiff Samie Garakani (“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 2

JS-6

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

CV 17-8612 PA (PJWx)

Date

Title

December 7, 2017

Samie Garakani v. Costco Wholesale Corp.

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 “Garakani states in his complaint that he ‘is, and at all times
hereinafter mentioned was, an individual residing in the County of Los Angeles, State of California.’
(Complaint at paragraph 2). Garakani is a citizen of the State of California for diversity jurisdiction
purposes.” (Notice of Removal 2:22-25.) As the Notice of Removal makes clear, the Complaint alleges
only that Plaintiff resides in California. (Compl. ¶2.) Because an individual is not necessarily domiciled
where he or she resides, Defendant’s allegations of the citizenship of Plaintiff, based only on allegations
of residence, are insufficient to establish his 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 Plaintiffs’ citizenship are
insufficient to invoke this Court’s diversity jurisdiction.
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. BC678979, 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 2 of 2