Cristian Castro v. Family Dollar, Inc.

Filing 7

MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS - COURT ORDER by Judge Percy Anderson remanding case to Los Angeles County Superior Court, Case number BC629129. Case Terminated. Made JS-6. (See document for details) (mrgo)

JS-6

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

CV 17-9222 PA (PJWx)

Title

December 29, 2017

Cristian Castro v. Family Dollar, Inc.

Present: The
Honorable

Date

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 Family Dollar, Inc. (“Defendant”) on
December 27, 2017. Defendant asserts that this Court has jurisdiction over the action brought against it
by plaintiff Cristian Castro (“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 17-9222 PA (PJWx)

Title

December 29, 2017

Cristian Castro v. Family Dollar, Inc.

Date

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, Cristian Castro was, at the time of the filing of
this action, and presently remains, a resident and citizen of the State of California. See Exhbit ‘A.’”
(Notice of Removal ¶ 9.) As the Notice of Removal alleges, Defendant’s support for its allegations
concerning Plaintiff’s residence and citizenship, rely solely on “Exhibit A,” which is the Complaint that
Plaintiff filed in the Los Angeles Superior Court. Plaintiff’s Complaint, which was prepared using a
form approved by the Judicial Council of California, does not allege Plaintiff’s residence or citizenship.
Because an individual is not necessarily domiciled where he or she resides, Defendant’s allegations of
the citizenship of Plaintiff, based on a Complaint that does not allege either the citizenship or residence
of Plaintiff, 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 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. BC629129, 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