Berlanga et al v. Equilon Enterprises LLC et al

Filing 27

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION; AFFORDING PLAINTIFFS LEAVE TO AMEND; CONTINUING CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE. The complaint is dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. If plaintiffs wish to file an a mended complaint, plaintiffs shall file such pleading no later than May 19, 2017. The Case Management Conference is continued rom May 5, 2017, to June 30, 2017, at 10:30 a.m. A Joint Case Management Statement shall be filed no later than June 23, 2017. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on April 26, 2017. (mmclc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/26/2017)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9

DAVID BERLANGA, ET AL.,
Plaintiffs,

10
v.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

EQUILON ENTERPRISES LLC, et al.,
Defendants.

13

Case No. 17-cv-00282-MMC
ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT
FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER
JURISDICTION; AFFORDING
PLAINTIFFS LEAVE TO AMEND;
CONTINUING CASE MANAGEMENT
CONFERENCE

14
15

Before the Court is the "Class Action Complaint for Damages, Restitution, and

16

Injunctive Relief," filed January 19, 2017,1 by plaintiffs David Berlanga, Brandon

17

Ehresman, Charles Gaeth, Michael Gonzalez, John Langlitz and Christopher Palacio on

18

their own behalf and on behalf of a putative class. Having read and considered the

19

complaint, the Court, for the reasons stated below, will dismiss the action for lack of

20

subject matter jurisdiction and will afford plaintiffs the opportunity to amend to allege, if

21

they can do so, sufficient facts to support jurisdiction.

22

The complaint consists of four causes of action, each arising under state law and

23

each based on plaintiffs' allegations that defendants, who are alleged to be plaintiffs'

24

employers, have not provided plaintiffs with "off-duty breaks." (See Compl. ¶¶ 33-38, 43-

25

44, 47, 52, 61.) In their jurisdictional statement, plaintiffs allege that "[t]his Court has

26

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 because [p]laintiffs are California residents,

27
1

28

The above-titled action was reassigned to the undersigned on April 10, 2017.

1

[d]efendants are incorporated in Delaware and headquartered in Houston, Texas, and the

2

amount in controversy exceeds $75,000." (See Compl. ¶ 14.)

3

A district court has diversity jurisdiction where "the matter in controversy exceeds

4

the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs" and the matter is "between

5

. . . citizens of different States." See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). The allegations in the instant

6

complaint, however, are insufficient as a matter of law to support a finding that the matter

7

is between citizens of different states.

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14

First, the complaint includes no factual allegations to support a finding that any of
the six plaintiffs, each of whom is an individual, is a citizen of any state. As the Ninth
Circuit has explained:
To be a citizen of a state, a natural person must first be a citizen of the
United States. The natural person's state citizenship is then determined by
[that person's] state of domicile, not [his/her] state of residence. A person's
domicile is [his/her] permanent home, where [he/she] resides with the
intention to remain or to which [he/she] intends to return. A person residing
in a given state is not necessarily domiciled there, and thus is not
necessarily a citizen of that state.

15

See Kanter v. Warner-Lambert Co., 265 F.3d 853, 857 (9th Cir. 2001). Although the

16

complaint alleges each plaintiff is a "resident" of California (see Compl. ¶¶ 1-6),2 such

17

allegation fails to support the "assertion of diversity citizenship." See Kanter v. Warner-

18

Lambert Co., 265 F.3d 853, 857-58 (9th Cir. 2001) (holding notice of removal failed to

19

adequately allege parties were diverse, where notice alleged plaintiffs were "residents" of

20

California, and, consequently, failed to "[make] any allegation regarding [p]laintiffs' state

21

citizenship").

22

Second, the complaint includes no factual allegations from which the Court could

23

determine the state(s) of which any of the three defendants, each of which is an artificial

24

entity, is a citizen. The complaint alleges that defendant Equilon Enterprises is an "LLC,"

25

i.e., a limited liability company (see Compl. ¶ 9), and that defendants CRI U.S. and Shell

26
2

27
28

The complaint includes, inter alia, an "Introduction" and a section titled "The
Parties," both of which contain paragraphs numbered 1-4. (See Compl. at 1:2-24, 2:26 3:5.) The above citation is to the latter.
2

Pipeline Company are each "LPs," i.e., limited partnerships (see Compl. ¶¶ 10-11). An

2

LLC is a citizen of every state of which its "owners/members" are citizens, see Johnson v.

3

Columbia Properties Anchorage, LP, 437 F.3d 894, 899 (9th Cir. 2006), and an LP is a

4

citizen of every state of which "all of the members," i.e., its "general partners" and "limited

5

partners," are citizens, see Carden v. Arkoma Associates, 494 U.S. 185, 192, 195 (1990)

6

(internal quotation and citation omitted). Consequently, a district court cannot determine

7

the citizenship of an LLC or an LP in the absence of a showing as to the identity and

8

citizenship of each of its members. Further, "because a member of [an artificial entity]

9

may itself have multiple members – and thus may itself have multiple citizenships – the

10

federal court needs to know the citizenship of each 'sub-member' as well." See V & M

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

1

Star, LP v. Centimark Corp., 596 F.3d 354, 356 (6th Cir. 2010) (internal quotation and

12

citation omitted). Here, the complaint does not identify the members of the three

13

defendants, let alone each member's state(s) of citizenship, and, as to any member that

14

is not an individual or corporation, each sub-member's state(s) of citizenship.

15

In sum, the complaint includes no facts to support a finding as to the citizenship of

16

any plaintiff or any defendant, let alone facts to support a finding of "complete diversity of

17

citizenship." See Carden, 494 U.S. at 187 (internal quotation and citation omitted).

18

Accordingly, the complaint is subject to dismissal for lack of subject matter

19

jurisdiction, see Fed. R. Civ. P 12(h)(3) (providing "[i]f the court determines at any time

20

that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, it must dismiss the action"), and plaintiffs may file

21

an amended complaint if they can allege facts that would support a finding that the

22

parties are diverse, see 28 U.S.C. § 1653 (providing "[d]efective allegations of jurisdiction

23

may be amended").
CONCLUSION

24
25

For the reasons stated above, the complaint is hereby DISMISSED for lack of

26

subject matter jurisdiction. If plaintiffs wish to file an amended complaint for purposes of

27

curing the above-referenced jurisdictional deficiencies, plaintiffs shall file such pleading

28

no later than May 19, 2017.
3

1

In light of the above, the Case Management Conference is hereby CONTINUED

2

from May 5, 2017, to June 30, 2017, at 10:30 a.m. A Joint Case Management Statement

3

shall be filed no later than June 23, 2017.

4

IT IS SO ORDERED.

5
6

Dated: April 26, 2017
MAXINE M. CHESNEY
United States District Judge

7
8
9
10

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
4