NuFlowers, LLC v. Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc.

Filing 12

ORDER signed by Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 6/6/2012 ORDERING that Defendant has not met its burden of establishing that removal is proper. This case is REMANDED to the Yolo County Superior Court. Plaintiff's 7 ex parte application is DENIED as moot. This case is CLOSED. Copy of remand order sent to other court. CASE CLOSED. (Zignago, K.)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

NUFLOWERS, LLC,
Plaintiff,

11
12
13
14
15
16

No. CIV S-12-1461 KJM-DAD

vs.
PIONEER HI-BRED INTERNATIONAL, INC.,

ORDER

Defendant.
/
Defendant removed the above-captioned action from the Yolo County Superior

17

Court on May 30, 2012 by invoking this court’s diversity jurisdiction. (Notice of Removal, ECF

18

1.) The court has an independent duty to determine if it has subject matter jurisdiction and

19

accordingly does so now. See FED. R. CIV. P. 12(h)(3); Hertz Corp. v. Friend, 130 S. Ct. 1181,

20

1193 (2010) (“Courts have an independent obligation to determine whether subject-matter

21

jurisdiction exists, even when no party challenges it.”).

22

“[A]ny civil action brought in a State court of which the district courts of the

23

United States have original jurisdiction [] may be removed by the defendant or the defendants []

24

to the district court . . . .” 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). The Ninth Circuit “strictly construe[s] the

25

removal statute against removal jurisdiction.” Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir.

26

1992) (citing Boggs v. Lewis, 863, F.2d 662, 663 (9th Cir. 1988); Takeda v. Northwestern Nat’l
1

1

Life Ins. Co., 765 F.2d 815, 818 (9th Cir. 1985)). “Federal jurisdiction must be rejected if there

2

is any doubt as to the right of removal in the first instance.” Id. (citing Libhart v. Santa Monica

3

Dairy Co., 592 F.2d 1062, 1064 (9th Cir. 1979)). There is a “strong presumption” against

4

removal jurisdiction, which “means that the defendant always has the burden of establishing that

5

removal is proper.” Id. Accordingly, “the court resolves all ambiguity in favor of remand to

6

state court.” Hunter v. Phillip Morris USA, 582 F.3d 1039, 1042 (9th Cir. 2009).

7

Defendant alleges parties are citizens of different states. (Not. of Removal.)

8

Specifically, citing to plaintiff’s complaint, it states it is an Iowa corporation with its principal

9

place of business in Iowa while plaintiff is a limited liability corporation (“LLC”) organized

10

under the laws of, and with its principal place of business located in, California. (Id.) However,

11

neither defendant nor plaintiff provide information regarding the citizenship of plaintiff’s owner,

12

Dr. Thomas Heaton. (Compl. ¶ 2.) “Diversity jurisdiction under § 1332 requires complete

13

diversity of citizenship, [plaintiff] must be a citizen of a different state than [defendant].”

14

Allstate Ins. Co. v. Hughes, 358 F.3d 1089, 1095 (9th Cir. 2003). “[A]n LLC is a citizen of

15

every state of which its owners/members are citizens.” Johnson v. Columbia Props. Anchorage,

16

LP, 437 F.3d 894, 899 (9th Cir. 2006). As such, “Plaintiff’s citizenship depends on the

17

citizenship of its ‘owners/members.’” PNC Equip. Fin., LLC v. Cal. Fairs Fin. Auth., No. 2:11-

18

cv-02019-GEB-CKD, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 72041, at *12 (E.D. Cal. May 23, 2012) (citation

19

omitted).

20

Defendant has not met its burden of establishing that removal is proper. This case

21

is REMANDED to the Yolo County Superior Court. Plaintiff’s ex parte application (ECF 7) is

22

denied as moot. This case is CLOSED.

23
24

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: June 6, 2012.

25
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

26
2