Banga v. Equifax Information Services LLC

Filing 7

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE, and ORDER SETTING HEARING ON MOTION TO REMAND. Equifax must show cause in writing why removal is proper. The Court will treat the plaintiff's opposition 6 as a motion to remand and hearing set for 9/10/2014 01:00 P M in Courtroom A, 15th Floor, San Francisco. Any response to the motion is due 8/25/2014. Parties must consent or decline the jurisdication of a magistrate judge by 8/25/2014. (Attachments: # 1 Consent/Declination, # 2 Certificate/Proof of Service)(lmh, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/11/2014)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

10
11 KAMLESH BANGA,

Case No. 14-cv-03038 NC

12

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE, and
ORDER SETTING HEARING ON
MOTION TO REMAND

Plaintiff,

13

v.

14 EQUIFAX INFORMATION SERVICES
15
16
17

Re: Dkt. Nos. 1, 6

LLC,
Defendant.
On July 2, 2014, defendant Equifax removed this action to federal court on the basis

18 of diversity jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). Dkt. No. 1 ¶ 4. However, the removal notice
19 does not contain sufficient allegations to establish the citizenship of all relevant parties for
20 diversity purposes. The federal courts “have an independent obligation to determine
21 whether subject-matter jurisdiction exists, even in the absence of a challenge from any
22 party.” Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 514 (2006). “If at any time [after removal
23 and] before final judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction,
24 the case shall be remanded.” 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).
25

The notice of removal here does not adequately allege the citizenship of plaintiff.

26 The notice states that “Plaintiff’s Complaint, on its face, states that Plaintiff is a resident of
27 Solano County, California.” Dkt. No. 1 ¶ 5. However, a natural person’s state citizenship
28 is determined by her state of domicile. Kanter v. Warner-Lambert Co., 265 F.3d 853, 857
Case No. 14-cv-03038 NC
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
AND SETTING HEARING

1 (9th Cir. 2001). “A person’s domicile is her permanent home, where she resides with the
2 intention to remain or to which she intends to return. . . . A person residing in a given state
3 is not necessarily domiciled there, and thus is not necessarily a citizen of that state.” Id.
4 The removal notice here fails to allege the domicile of plaintiff for diversity purposes.
5

Additionally, the removal notice does not adequately allege the citizenship of

6 defendant. The notice states that “Equifax is, in fact, a Georgia Limited Liability Company
7 with its headquarters and principal place of business in Atlanta, Georgia.” Dkt. No. 1 ¶ 7.
8 The diversity statute provides that “a corporation shall be deemed to be a citizen of every
9 State and foreign state by which it has been incorporated and of the State or foreign state
10 where it has its principal place of business.” 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1). Unlike a corporation,
11 a limited liability company is treated for purposes of diversity as a citizen of every state of
12 which its owners/members are citizens. See Johnson v. Columbia Properties Anchorage,
13 LP, 437 F.3d 894, 899 (9th Cir. 2006); Cosgrove v. Bartolotta, 150 F.3d 729, 731 (7th Cir.
14 1998). Moreover, if any member of an LLC is itself a partnership or association (or another
15 LLC), the Court needs to know the citizenship of each “sub-member” as well. V & M Star,
16 LP v. Centimark Corp., 596 F.3d 354, 356 (6th Cir. 2010). The removal notice here fails to
17 allege the citizenship of the members, and any sub-members, of Equifax.
18

By August 25, 2014, Equifax must show cause in writing why the removal is proper

19 by addressing the Court’s concerns identified above. If Equifax does not establish that
20 removal was proper, the Court will remand this action to state court and may order other
21 relief as justice requires.
22

Additionally, plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed an opposition to the removal. Dkt.

23 No. 6. The Court will treat the opposition as a motion to remand the case to state court and
24 will hear the motion on September 10, 2014, at 1:00 p.m. in Courtroom A, 15th Floor, U.S.
25 District Court, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, California. Any response to the
26 motion for remand is due by August 25, 2014. Any reply is due within 7 days after the
27 response is filed.
28

For additional guidance, plaintiff may refer to the Court’s Pro Se Handbook, available
Case No. 14-cv-03038 NC
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
AND SETTING HEARING

2

/www.cand
d.uscourts.gov/prosehan
ndbook on the Court’s website, o contact th
s
or
he
1 at http://
H
vides inform
mation and limited-sco legal ad
ope
dvice to pro se
o
2 Legal Help Center, which prov
ses.
egal
C
ires
ointment, w
which can be made
e
3 litigants in civil cas The Le Help Center requi an appo
ng
4 by callin [phone].

5

Pl
laintiff and defendant must consen or declin the jurisd
m
nt
ne
diction of a magistrate judge

ust
4.
ched consen
nt/declinatio form.
on
6 by Augu 25, 2014 See attac

7

IT IS SO OR
T
RDERED.

8

Date: August 11, 2014
t

9

_____
_________
__________
____
Nath
hanael M. C
Cousins
Unit States M
ted
Magistrate J
Judge

10
0
11
1
12
2
13
3
14
4
15
5
16
6
17
7
18
8
19
9
20
0
21
1
22
2
23
3
24
4
25
5
26
6
27
7
28
8
Case No. 14-cv-0303 NC
38
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
R
AND SE
ETTING HEARING

3