Blanchard et al v. Fluent, Inc et al

Filing 47

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO REMAND; DENYING PLAINTIFFS' REQUEST FOR COSTS. Civil Case Terminated. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on 06/08/17. (mmclc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/8/2017)

1
2
3
4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

MIRA BLANCHARD, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

8
v.

9
10

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’
MOTION TO REMAND; DENYING
PLAINTIFFS’ REQUEST FOR COSTS

FLUENT, INC., et al.,
Defendants.

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

Case No. 17-cv-01551-MMC

Re: Dkt. Nos. 16, 18

12
13

Before the Court are (1) plaintiffs’ “Motion to Remand to California Superior Court

14

and Request for Costs” (“Motion to Remand”), filed April 3, 2017, and (2) the Court’s

15

“Order Directing Defendant Fluent, LLC to Show Cause Why Action Should Not Be

16

Remanded” (“Order to Show Cause”), filed April 4, 2017. Defendant Fluent, LLC

17

(“Fluent”)1 has filed a single document comprising its opposition to the Motion to Remand

18

and response to the Order to Show Cause (“Opposition/Response”), to which plaintiffs

19

have replied. Having considered the parties’ written submissions, the Court rules as

20

follows.2

21

In the operative complaint, the First Amended Complaint (“FAC”), plaintiffs allege

22

against thirteen named defendants a single cause of action under § 17529.5 of the

23

California Business & Professions Code. On March 22, 2017, Fluent removed the above-

24

titled action on the asserted basis of diversity jurisdiction.

25

As previously noted by the Court, removal is proper in the instant action “if none of

26
1

The parties agree that Fluent was erroneously sued as Fluent, Inc.

2

By order filed June 2, 2017, the Court took the matter under submission.

27
28

1

the thirteen defendants is a citizen of California,” and, as the Court further noted, Fluent

2

had not, in its Notice of Removal, made the requisite showing as to the citizenship of all

3

thirteen defendants. (See Order to Show Cause, at 1:28-2:2.) In particular, Fluent had

4

relied on the FAC’s allegations as to citizenship, and, as the Court found, the FAC does

5

not allege facts sufficient to show all defendants are “citizens of states other than

6

California.” (Id. at 2:3-8 (quoting Notice of Removal ¶ 6).)

7

Although Fluent, in its Opposition/Response, has provided additional information

8

as to the defendants’ citizenship, the Court finds Fluent again has not met its “burden of

9

establishing that removal is proper.” See Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir.
1992). In particular, as to defendants Anglo Iditech and FortAnalysis8 Develop, Fluent

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

asserts it “is informed and believes” that those defendants “are part of a [ ] Delaware

12

entity named ‘Experions.com, LLC.’” (See Opposition/Response, at 5:2-4.) As the Court

13

has already pointed out, however, an LLC “is a citizen of every state of which its

14

owners/members are citizens” and, consequently, a district court cannot determine the

15

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

16

each of its members. (See Order to Show Cause, at 2:15-18 (quoting Johnson v.

17

Columbia Properties Anchorage, LP, 437 F.3d 894, 899 (9th Cir. 2006).) Here, Fluent

18

has not identified the members of Experions.com, LLC, let alone the citizenship of each

19

such member, and thus has not shown defendants Anglo Iditech and FortAnalysis8

20

Develop are citizens of states other than California.3

21

Fluent acknowledges the above-noted deficiency in its Opposition/Response and

22

asks the Court to “afford Fluent additional time to assess this issue.” (See

23

Opposition/Response, at 5:6-12.) Diversity jurisdiction, however, “is determined (and

24

must exist) as of the time the complaint is filed and removal is effected.” See Strotek

25
26
27
28

3

Moreover, as to AdReaction, which is described in the FAC as a “business entity
of unknown formation” (FAC ¶ 26), Fluent states said defendant is “related to . . . ‘North
Island Marketing Corp’” (Richard Decl. ¶ 13), a Canadian corporation, but does not
explain the nature of that relationship.
2

1

Corp. v. Air Transport Ass’n of America, 300 F.3d 1129, 1131 (9th Cir. 2002). As set

2

forth above, Fluent, in its Notice of Removal, did not make the requisite showing of

3

diversity, and, at this point in the proceedings, more than two months after that removal,

4

remains unable to do so.4

5

Under such circumstances, which include what was, in essence, a premature
removal, see 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(3) (providing for removal “within 30 days after receipt”

7

by defendant of document “from which it may first be ascertained that the case is one

8

which is or has become removable”), as well as at least the potential for removal at a

9

later time, see Mattel, Inc. v. Bryant, 441 F. Supp. 2d 1081, 1089 (C.D. Cal. 2005)

10

(holding “[s]uccessive removals are not necessarily barred”; further holding “new

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

6

evidence permitted [defendant] to file[] a second notice of removal”), the Court finds

12

remand, at this time, is appropriate. The Court next turns to plaintiffs’ request for an

13

award of the attorneys’ fees they incurred in filing the Motion to Remand.

14

An “order remanding the case may require payment of just costs and any actual

15

expenses, including attorney fees, incurred as a result of the removal.” See 28 U.S.C.

16

§ 1447(c). Although a showing of bad faith “is not necessary,” the Court nonetheless

17

finds an award of fees, in this instance, is not warranted. See Moore v. Permanente

18

Medical Group, Inc., 981 F.2d 443, 446 (9th Cir. 1992) (holding “[a]n award of attorney’s

19

fees pursuant to section 1447(c) . . . is within the discretion of the district court”). In

20

particular, plaintiffs have named over a dozen defendants to the instant action, Fluent has

21

engaged in extensive efforts to determine the citizenship of those defendants (see

22

Richard Decl. ¶¶ 3-34), and all parties appear to have been unaware of the law regarding

23

citizenship of LLCs, the issue having been raised in the first instance in the Court’s Order

24
25
26
27
28

4

Plaintiffs, as an additional ground for remand, point to defendant Sauphtware,
Inc.’s untimely consent to Fluent’s removal. A procedural defect, however, can be “cured
prior to entry of judgment” and “does not warrant . . . remand of the matter to state court.”
See Destfino v. Reiswig, 630 F.3d 952, 956-57 (9th Cir. 2011) (internal quotation and
citation omitted) (holding district court “may allow the removing defendants to cure the
defect by obtaining joinder of all defendants prior to entry of judgment”).
3

1
2

to Show Cause.
Accordingly, for the reasons set forth above, plaintiffs’ motion to remand is hereby

3

GRANTED, plaintiffs’ request for attorneys’ fees is hereby DENIED, and the instant

4

action is hereby REMANDED to the California Superior Court for the County of San

5

Francisco.

6

The Clerk shall close the file.

7
8

IT IS SO ORDERED.

9
10

Dated: June 8, 2017
MAXINE M. CHESNEY
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
4