Vyron Leary v. Amazon.com Services, LLC et al

Filing 9

MINUTES (In Chambers) Order Remanding Action by Judge Fernando M. Olguin. *See Order for Details.* Case Terminated. Made JS-6 (rolm)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JS-6

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.

ED CV 24-2022 FMO (SPx)

Title

Vyron Leary v. Amazon.com Services LLC

Present: The Honorable

Date

September 30, 2024

Fernando M. Olguin, United States District Judge

Vanessa Figueroa

None

None

Deputy Clerk

Court Reporter / Recorder

Tape No.

Attorney Present for Plaintiff(s):

Attorney Present for Defendant(s):

None Present

None Present

Proceedings:

(In Chambers) Order Remanding Action

On June 14, 2024, Vyron Leary (“plaintiff”) filed a Complaint in the Riverside County
Superior Court against Amazon.com Services LLC (“Amazon” or “defendant”), asserting state law
claims relating to his employment. (See Dkt. 1, Notice of Removal (“NOR”) at ¶ 2); (Dkt. 1-1,
Complaint). On September 20, 2024, defendant removed the action on diversity jurisdiction
grounds pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332 and 1441(b). (See Dkt. 1, NOR at ¶ 8). Having reviewed
the pleadings, the court hereby remands this action to state court for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).
In general, “any civil action brought in a State court of which the district courts of the United
States have original jurisdiction, may be removed by the defendant or the defendants, to the
district court[.]” 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). A removing defendant bears the burden of establishing that
removal is proper. See Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992) (per curiam) (“The
strong presumption against removal jurisdiction means that the defendant always has the burden
of establishing that removal is proper.”) (internal quotation marks omitted); Abrego Abrego v. The
Dow Chem. Co., 443 F.3d 676, 684 (9th Cir. 2006) (per curiam) (noting the “longstanding, nearcanonical rule that the burden on removal rests with the removing defendant”). If there is any
doubt regarding the existence of subject matter jurisdiction, the court must resolve those doubts
in favor of remanding the action to state court.1 See Gaus, 980 F.2d at 566 (“Federal jurisdiction
must be rejected if there is any doubt as to the right of removal in the first instance.”). Indeed, “[i]f
at any time before final judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction,
the case shall be remanded.” 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c); see Kelton Arms Condo. Owners Ass’n, Inc.
v. Homestead Ins. Co., 346 F.3d 1190, 1192 (9th Cir. 2003) (“Subject matter jurisdiction may not
be waived, and, indeed, we have held that the district court must remand if it lacks jurisdiction.”);
Washington v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 2009 WL 1519894, *1 (C.D. Cal. 2009) (a district court
may remand an action where the court finds that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction “either by

1

An “antiremoval presumption” does not exist in cases removed pursuant to the Class
Action Fairness Act (“CAFA”), 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d). See Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co., LLC
v. Owens, 574 U.S. 81, 89, 135 S.Ct. 547, 554 (2014).
CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 1 of 3

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

ED CV 24-2022 FMO (SPx)

Title

Vyron Leary v. Amazon.com Services LLC

Date

September 30, 2024

motion or sua sponte”).
When federal subject matter jurisdiction is predicated on diversity of citizenship, see 28
U.S.C. § 1332(a),2 complete diversity must exist between the opposing parties, see Caterpillar Inc.
v. Lewis, 519 U.S. 61, 68, 117 S.Ct. 467, 472 (1996) (stating that the diversity jurisdiction statute
“applies only to cases in which the citizenship of each plaintiff is diverse from the citizenship of
each defendant”), and the amount in controversy must exceed $75,000. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a).
Here, the court’s review of the NOR and the attached state court Complaint makes clear that this
court does not have subject matter jurisdiction over the instant matter. See 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a);
Caterpillar, Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392, 107 S.Ct. 2425, 2429 (1987) (“Only state-court
actions that originally could have been filed in federal court may be removed to federal court by
the defendant.”) (footnote omitted). In other words, plaintiff could not have originally brought this
action in federal court, as plaintiff does not competently allege facts supplying diversity
jurisdiction.3 See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a).
Amazon, a limited liability company (“LLC”), (see Dkt. 1, NOR at 1 & ¶ 16), contends that
complete diversity exists because plaintiff is a citizen of California, (see id. at ¶ 14), and Amazon
is “a citizen of both Delaware and Washington” because Delaware “is where it is incorporated” and
Washington is where it “maintains its principal place of business[.]” (Id. at ¶ 16). However,
Amazon improperly relies on the standard applicable to corporations despite the fact that it is an
LLC. (See id. at ¶ 15) (relying on standard applicable to corporations). In other words, Amazon’s
contention that it is incorporated in Delaware and has its principal place of business in Washington
(id. at ¶ 16), is irrelevant to the determination of its citizenship. See Buschman v. Anesthesia
Business Consultants LLC, 42 F.Supp.3d 1244, 1248 (N.D. Cal. 2014) (“An LLC’s principal place
of business [or] state of organization is irrelevant” for purposes of diversity jurisdiction); Tele
Munchen Fernseh GMBH & Co Produktionsgesellschaft v. Alliance Atlantis Int’l Distribution, LLC,
2013 WL 6055328, *4 (C.D. Cal. 2013) (“As a limited liability company, [defendant]’s principal
place of business is irrelevant for purposes of diversity jurisdiction.”). This is because LLCs are
treated like partnerships rather than corporations for the purpose of determining citizenship, and
are deemed “a citizen of every state of which its owners/members are citizens.” Johnson v.
Columbia Props. Anchorage, LP, 437 F.3d 894, 899 (9th Cir. 2006); see Grupo Dataflux v. Atlas
Global Grp., L.P., 541 U.S. 567, 569, 124 S.Ct. 1920, 1923 (2004) (“[A] partnership . . . is a citizen
of each State or foreign country of which any of its partners is a citizen.”). “There is no such thing
as ‘a [state name] limited partnership’ for purposes of . . . diversity jurisdiction. There are only
partners, each of which has one or more citizenships.” Hart v. Terminex Int’l, 336 F.3d 541, 544
(7th Cir. 2003) (internal quotation marks omitted).

2

In relevant part, 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) provides that “district courts shall have original
jurisdiction of all civil actions where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of
$75,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and is between . . . citizens of different States[.]”
3

Defendant seeks only to invoke the court’s diversity jurisdiction. (See Dkt. 1, NOR).

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 2 of 3

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

ED CV 24-2022 FMO (SPx)

Date

Title

Vyron Leary v. Amazon.com Services LLC

September 30, 2024

Here, Amazon has failed to establish its citizenship and that of its members, and has
therefore failed to show that complete diversity of the parties exists. See, e.g., Lindley Contours,
LLC v. AABB Fitness Holdings, Inc., 414 F.Appx. 62, 64 (9th Cir. 2011) (holding that an allegation
that no member of a defendant LP “is an Oregon citizen,” without identifying the actual state of
citizenship of the LP's members or whether the members were composed of another layer of
business entities, was insufficient to establish complete diversity); Amescua v. Peacock TV LLC,
2024 WL 39192, *3 (C.D. Cal. 2024) (remanding action where LLC defendant “fail[ed] to
specifically identify [its] member’s members and allege each one’s citizenship”).
Given that any doubt regarding the existence of subject matter jurisdiction must be resolved
in favor of remanding the action to state court, see Gaus, 980 F.2d at 566, the court is not
persuaded, under the circumstances here, that Amazon has met its burden. Therefore, there is
no basis for diversity jurisdiction.
This Order is not intended for publication. Nor is it intended to be included in or
submitted to any online service such as Westlaw or Lexis.
Based on the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED THAT:
1. The above-captioned action shall be remanded to the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of Riverside, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1447(c).
2. The Clerk shall send a certified copy of this Order to the state court.

00
Initials of Preparer

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

:

00

vdr

Page 3 of 3