Emerson Wood v. Boomtown Entertainment, LLC et al

Filing 20

MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS): ORDER REMANDING ACTION TO SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT by Judge John F. Walter: This action is REMANDED to San Bernardino County Superior Court, Case Number CIVDS1413788, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. ( Case Terminated. Made JS-6 ) Court Reporter: None Present. (gk)

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

ED CV 15-1610-JFW (DTBx)

Title:

Emerson Wood -v- Boomtown Entertainment, LLC, et al.

Date: August 20, 2015

PRESENT:
HONORABLE JOHN F. WALTER, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Shannon Reilly
Courtroom Deputy

None Present
Court Reporter

ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR PLAINTIFFS:
None
PROCEEDINGS (IN CHAMBERS):

ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR DEFENDANTS:
None

ORDER REMANDING ACTION TO SAN BERNARDINO
COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT

On July 13, 2015, Plaintiff Emerson Wood (“Plaintiff”) filed a First Amended Complaint
against Defendants CRGE Rancho Cucamonga, LLC, d/b/a Toby Keith’s I Love This Bar & Grill!,
Boomtown Entertainment, LLC, and Boomtown Management, LLC (collectively, “Defendants”) in
San Bernardino County Superior Court. On August 9, 2015, Defendant Boomtown Entertainment,
LLC (“Boomtown) filed a Notice of Removal of Action Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a)-(b) and 28
U.S.C. § 1332 (“Notice of Removal”), alleging that this Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1332(a).
Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, having subject matter jurisdiction only over
matters authorized by the Constitution and Congress. See Bender v. Williamsport Area School
District, 475 U.S. 534, 541 (1986). “Because of the Congressional purpose to restrict the
jurisdiction of the federal courts on removal, the statute is strictly construed, and federal jurisdiction
must be rejected if there is any doubt as to the right of removal in the first instance.” Duncan v.
Stuetzle, 76 F.3d 1480, 1485 (9th Cir. 1996) (citations and quotations omitted). There is a strong
presumption that the Court is without jurisdiction unless the contrary affirmatively appears. See
Fifty Associates v. Prudential Insurance Company of America, 446 F.2d 1187, 1190 (9th Cir.
1990). As the parties invoking federal jurisdiction, Boomtown bears the burden of demonstrating
that removal is proper. See, e.g., Gaus v. Miles, 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992); Emrich v.
Touche Ross & Co., 846 F.2d 1190, 1195 (9th Cir. 1988).
Diversity jurisdiction founded under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) requires that (1) all plaintiffs be of
different citizenship than all defendants, and (2) the amount in controversy exceed $75,000. See
28 U.S.C. § 1332. For the purposes of diversity jurisdiction, a limited liability company is a citizen
of every state of which its members are citizens. See, e.g., Johnson v. Columbia Properties
Anchorage, LP, 437 F.3d 894, 899 (9th Cir. 2006) (“[L]ike a partnership, an LLC is a citizen of every
Page 1 of 2

Initials of Deputy Clerk sr

state of which its owners/members are citizens.”).

Boomtown alleges that Plaintiff is a citizen of Colorado. Although Boomtown alleges that
none of Defendant Boomtown Management, LLC’s members are citizens of the State of California,
Boomtown fails to allege that none of Defendant Boomtown Management, LLC’s members are
citizens of the State of Colorado and fails to allege the specific citizenship of any of Defendant
Boomtown Management, LLC’s members. Notice of Removal at ¶ 6; Declaration of Gregory
McClure at ¶ 5.
In addition, although Boomtown alleges that none of Defendant CRGE Rancho Cucamonga,
LLC’s members are citizens of the State of California, Boomtown fails to allege that none of CRGE
Rancho Cucamonga, LLC’s members are citizens of the State of Colorado. Moreover, although
Boomtown declares that the members of CRGE Rancho Cucamonga, LLC are Boomtown
Management, LLC and Arizona Universal Holdings, LLC, Boomtown fails to allege the citizenship
of any of the members of Arizona Universal Holdings, LLC (and as already noted, the citizenship of
any of the members of Boomtown Management, LLC).
Accordingly, this action is REMANDED to San Bernardino County Superior Court for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Page 2 of 2

Initials of Deputy Clerk sr