Khan et al v. K2 Pure Solutions, LP

Filing 58

ORDER TO ADDRESS SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION AT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE. At the Case Management Conference on August 28, 2013, the parties should be prepared to address whether the Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this case. The parties should explain the results of any discovery on this issue and, if it is ongoing, when it will be completed. Signed by Judge William H. Orrick on August 21, 2013. (jmdS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/21/2013)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

IMTIAZ KHAN, et al.,

Case No. 12-cv-05526-WHO

Plaintiffs,
8
v.
9
10

K2 PURE SOLUTIONS, L.P., et al.,

ORDER TO ADDRESS SUBJECT
MATTER JURISDICTION AT CASE
MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

Defendants.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14

This case, which only alleges causes of action under California law, was originally filed in

15

the Superior Court of California, County of Contra Costa. Defendant K2 Pure Solutions, L.P.,

16

(“K2 Pure Solutions”) removed the case to this Court on the basis of diversity jurisdiction.

17

Removal Notice ¶ 4, Dkt. No. 1. The parties’ joint case management statement filed on February

18

21, 2013, states, “Plaintiffs do not concede that diversity actually exists, as they believe that

19

Defendant’s true corporate domicile is in Pittsburg, California, where Plaintiffs contend K2’s

20

principal place of business exists. However, Plaintiffs require discovery with respect to this issue

21

to confirm their assumptions.” Dkt. No. 18 at 1.

22

The original Complaint states that all the plaintiffs “reside[]” in, or are residents of,

23

California. Compl. ¶¶ 3-6. It also alleges that defendant K2 Pure Solutions is a Delaware limited

24

partnership and has its headquarters and principal place of business in Pittsburg, California.

25

Compl. ¶ 7. The Second Amended Complaint currently before the Court contains substantially

26

identical allegations as above, SAC ¶¶ 5-7, but also asserts claims against defendants K2 Pure

27

Solutions NoCal, L.P., and K2 Pure Solutions Pittsburg, L.P., both of which are also alleged to be

28

Delaware limited partnerships and as having their headquarters and principal places of business in

1
2

Pittsburg, California, SAC ¶¶ 8-10.
However, the defendants provide conflicting allegations. In the Notice of Removal, K2

3

Pure Solutions alleges that it is a Delaware limited partnership and has its principal place of

4

business in Ohio, and its general and limited partners are all Delaware limited liability companies

5

with their principal places of business in New York—thus it is a citizen of Delaware and New

6

York. Removal Notice ¶ 9 (citing Carden v. Arkoma Assocs., 494 U.S. 185 (1990)). Citing to the

7

original Complaint, K2 Pure Solutions’s Notice of Removal claims that all the plaintiffs are

8

“citizens” of either California or Nevada (though the Complaint says no such thing). Removal

9

Notice ¶¶ 6-8; see also Kanter v. Warner-Lambert Co., 265 F.3d 853 (9th Cir. 2001)
(distinguishing residency from citizenship). Thus, K2 Pure Solutions argues that there is complete

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

diversity of citizenship. Removal Notice ¶ 4. K2 Pure Solutions also alleges that the amount in

12

controversy exceeds $75,000. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332.

13

In addition, the defendants’ Answers to the original Complaint, First Amended Complaint,

14

and Second Amended Complaint claim that (1) K2 Pure Solutions is a Delaware limited

15

partnership and has its principal place of business in New York, and its general and limited

16

partners are Delaware limited liability companies with their principal places of business in New

17

York, a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in New York, and Ontario

18

limited partnerships with their principal places of business in Ontario, Canada (Compl. Answer ¶

19

7; FAC Answer ¶ 8; SAC Answer ¶ 8); (2) K2 Pure Solutions NoCal, L.P., is a Delaware limited

20

partnership, and its general and limited partners are a Delaware limited liability company and a

21

Delaware limited partnership with their principal places of business in Ohio or Ontario, Canada

22

(FAC Answer ¶ 9; SAC Answer ¶ 9); and (3) K2 Pure Solutions Pittsburg, L.P., is a Delaware

23

limited partnership, and its general and limited partners are a Delaware limited liability company

24

and a Delaware limited partnership with their principal places of business in Ohio or Ontario,

25

Canada (FAC Answer ¶ 10; SAC Answer ¶ 10).

26

Finally, the jurisdictional statement in the Second Amended Complaint alleges that this

27

Court has jurisdiction “pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 410.10 et seq.” but

28

has not provided any federal basis for subject matter jurisdiction. SAC ¶ 14.
2

1

At the Case Management Conference on August 28, 2013, the parties should be prepared

2

to address whether the Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this case. The parties should

3

explain the results of any discovery on this issue and, if it is ongoing, when it will be completed

4

The parties are directed to Carden v. Arkoma Assocs., 494 U.S. 185 (1990), Johnson v. Columbia

5

Props. Anchorage, LP, 437 F.3d 894 (9th Cir. 2006), Kanter v. Warner-Lambert Co., 265 F.3d

6

853 (9th Cir. 2001), and other applicable precedent in this circuit.

7
8
9
10

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: August 21, 2013
______________________________________
WILLIAM H. ORRICK
United States District Judge

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3