Zoriall LLC et al v. Starr Indemnity and Liability Company, et al
Filing
8
(IN CHAMBERS) COURT ORDER by Judge Percy Anderson: re: Notice of Removal (Attorney Civil Case Opening), 1 by Judge Percy Anderson remanding case to Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, Case number BC682157: Please refer to the Court's order for specifics. (Case Terminated. Made JS-6). (cr)
JS-6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.
CV 17-8838 PA (KSx)
Title
Zoriall LLC, et al. v. Starr Indemnity and Liability Company
Present: The Honorable
Date
December 12, 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 Starr Indemnity and Liability
Company (“Defendant”) on December 8, 2017. (Docket No. 1.) Defendant asserts that this Court has
jurisdiction over the action brought against it by plaintiffs Zoriall LLC, Anne Kihagi, and Christina
Mwangi (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) 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 17-8838 PA (KSx)
Date
Title
December 12, 2017
Zoriall LLC, et al. v. Starr Indemnity and Liability Company
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 plaintiffs Kihagi and Mwangi are both “individual[s] who at
all relevant times, including the time of commencement of this action and at the time of this removal,
[were] and [are] residing in the State of California, and, on information and belief, [were] at those
times . . . citizen[s] of the United States of America whose state of citizenship is California where [they]
reside[] and [are] domiciled.” (Notice of Removal ¶¶ 12, 13 (citation omitted).) As the Notice of
Removal makes clear, the Complaint alleges only that Kihagi and Mwangi are residents of California.
(Compl. ¶ 2, Notice of Removal Ex. A.) Because an individual is not necessarily domiciled where he or
she resides, Defendant’s allegations of the citizenship of Kihagi and Mwangi, based only on allegations
of residence, are insufficient to establish their citizenship.
As an LLC, plaintiff Zoriall has the citizenship of its members. Defendant alleges “that at all
relevant times, including the time of commencement of this action and at the time of this removal, the
only members and owners of Zoriall are Plaintiffs Anne Kihagi and/or Christina Mwangi . . . and the
state of citizenship of both Plaintiffs Anne Kihagi and Christina Mwangi is California as they are both
citizens of the United States of America, and residents of and domiciled in the State of California.”
(Notice of Removal ¶ 11.) For the reasons just discussed, Defendant has not established Kihagi’s or
Mwangi’s citizenship, and therefore Defendant also fails to establish Zoriall’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.”). 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. BC682157, 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
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?