David Paul Paturel v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company et al

Filing 12

MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS - COURT ORDER 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. BC678426, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction Case Terminated. Made JS-6 (lom)

JS-6

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

CV 17-8717 PA (GJSx)

Title

David Paturel v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.

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 State Farm Mutual Automobile
Insurance Company (“Defendant”) on December 4, 2017. Defendant asserts that this Court has
jurisdiction over the action brought against it by plaintiff David Paturel (“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 17-8717 PA (GJSx)

Date

Title

December 7, 2017

David Paturel v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.

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 “Plaintiff David Paul Patuerl was at the time of the filing of
this action, and still is, a citizen of the State of California. (See Complaint, ¶ 2, p. 2:13-14.)” (Notice of
Removal 4:22-24.) The Complaint alleges only that Plaintiff “is and was at all times relevant hereto, a
resident of Los Angeles County, the State of California.” (Compl. 2:13-14.) 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. BC678426, 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