Motel Inn, LLC v. 9223-6678 Quebec Inc., et al

Filing 6

MINUTE ORDER (IN CHAMBERS) by Judge Percy Anderson: For the foregoing reasons, Defendants have failed to satisfy their burden of showing that diversity jurisdiction exists over this action. Accordingly, this action is hereby remanded to San Luis Obispo County Superior Court, Case No. 20CV-0351, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. 1447(c). IT IS SO ORDERED. (See minutes for further details) remanding case to San Luis Obispo County Superior Court, Case number 20CV-0351 (yl)

JS-6

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

CV 20-8203 PA (MAAx)

Title

Motel Inn, LLC v. 9223-6678 Quebec Inc, et al.

Present: The Honorable

Date

September 10, 2020

PERCY ANDERSON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

T. Jackson

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 by defendants 9223-6678 Quebec Inc.,
d.b.a. Nomad Airstream (a.k.a. Custom Airstream), Steven Clement, and Guillaume Langevin
(collectively “Defendants”). Defendants assert that this Court has jurisdiction over the action
brought against it by plaintiff Motel Inn, LLC (“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, Defendants 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
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 20-8203 PA (MAAx)

Date

Title

September 10, 2020

Motel Inn, LLC v. 9223-6678 Quebec Inc, et al.

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.”); 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 “Defendants are informed and believe[] that, at the
time the Complaint was filed and at the time of this Notice, Plaintiff was a Limited Liability
Company organized and existing under the laws of the State of California and qualified to do
business in California, with its principal place of business in San Luis Obispo County. See
Complaint, ¶ 1. For diversity purposes, the citizenship of a limited liability company is
determined by the citizenship of its members. . . . Plaintiff’s current Statement of Information
on file with the California Secretary of State . . . states Plaintiff has two individual members —
Pat Arnold and Damien Mavis — and both reside in San Luis Obispo, California.” (Notice of
Removal at 2:14-23 (citations omitted).) As the Notice of Removal alleges, Defendants’ support
for their allegations concerning Plaintiff’s citizenship rely on allegations of residence on
information and belief. Because an individual is not necessarily domiciled where he or she
resides, Defendants’ allegations concerning the citizenship of Plaintiff, based on an allegation of
residence, 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.”). Indeed, the Statement of Information
upon which Defendants rely does not even appear to provide information concerning the
residence of either of the alleged members of Plaintiff, and instead lists a business address for
them that is identical to Plaintiff’s corporate address. As a result, Defendants’ allegations
related to Plaintiff’s citizenship are insufficient to invoke this Court’s diversity jurisdiction.
For the foregoing reasons, Defendants have failed to satisfy their burden of showing that
diversity jurisdiction exists over this action. Accordingly, this action is hereby remanded to San
Luis Obispo County Superior Court, Case No. 20CV-0351, 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