Connell & Associates et al v. White et al
Filing
48
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO REMAND, DENYING AS MOOT MOTION TO DISMISS, AND AWARDING ATTORNEY'S FEES AND COSTS by Judge Alsup granting (13) Motion to Remand; finding as moot (21) Motion to Dismiss in case 3:17-cv-03177-WHA. (whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/17/2017)
1
2
3
4
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7
8
9
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
12
No. C 17-03177 WHA
THOMAS F. WHITE 1991 TRUST,
Plaintiff,
v.
DAVID WILLIAM CONNELL, CPBV, LLC
and ATS, LLC,
ORDER GRANTING MOTION
TO REMAND, DENYING AS
MOOT MOTION TO DISMISS,
AND AWARDING ATTORNEY’S
FEES AND COSTS
Defendants.
13
/
14
INTRODUCTION
15
16
17
Defendants removed this dispute over a trust asset from state probate court. Plaintiff
moves to remand. For the reasons stated herein, plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED.
STATEMENT
18
19
Plaintiff Thomas F. White 1991 Trust filed a probate petition in the Superior Court of
20
the County of San Francisco to determine ownership of assets, and for an order authorizing and
21
directing transfer of property to the trust pursuant to California Probate Code Sections 850 and
22
17200 et. seq.
23
Defendants, Attorney David Connell, CBPV, LLC and ATS, LLC, removed the action
24
under Section 1332(a)(3) of Title 28 of the United States Code based on diversity, and Section
25
1964 of Title 18 of the United States Code based on alleged RICO violations.
26
Plaintiff now moves to remand on the grounds that (1) complete diversity is lacking, (2)
27
the probate petition does not state a federal claim, and (3) the action falls within the probate
28
exception. Attorney Connell moves to dismiss. This order follows full briefing and oral
argument.
1
2
ANALYSIS
In determining whether to remand, the district court looks to the pleadings filed in state
3
court. “It is to be presumed that a cause lies outside the limited jurisdiction of the federal courts
4
and the burden of establishing the contrary rests upon the party asserting jurisdiction.” Hunter
5
v. Philip Morris USA, 582 F.3d 1039, 1043 (9th Cir. 2009) (citations and quotations omitted).
6
“[T]he defendant always has the burden of establishing that removal is proper.” Gaus v. Miles,
7
Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992).
8
1.
9
Section 1332(a)(3) of Title 28 of the United States Code confers diversity jurisdiction
LACK OF COMPLETE DIVERSITY.
when a citizen of one state sues both aliens and citizens of a different state. In his notice of
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
removal, Attorney Connell says that he is a citizen of Mexico, where he resides, and is therefore
12
a diverse party under Section 1332(a)(3). He fails to mention, however, that he is also a citizen
13
of the United States and was born in California, as he later concedes in his opposition (Opp. at
14
5). Plaintiff argues that Attorney Connell’s United States citizenship defeats diversity.
15
In response to plaintiff’s assertion, Attorney Connell first argues that no controlling
16
precedent precludes a dual citizen domiciled abroad from invoking diversity jurisdiction. He
17
next contends that if his presence as a defendant would defeat diversity, he should be dropped
18
from the complaint because he is a dispensable party under FRCP 21. Neither argument is
19
availing.
20
21
A.
Dual Citizenship.
United States citizens who are not domiciled within a state are considered “stateless”
22
for the purposes of Section 1332(a)(3), and their presence in a suit defeats diversity jurisdiction.
23
Newman-Green, Inc. v. Alfonzo-Larrain, 490 U.S. 826 (1989). While neither the Supreme
24
Court nor our court of appeals have directly addressed whether dual citizens domiciled abroad
25
also defeat jurisdiction, “there is an emerging consensus among courts that, for a dual national
26
citizen, only the American citizenship is relevant for purposes of diversity under 28 U.S.C. §
27
1332.” Coury v. Prot, 85 F.3d 244, 250 (5th Cir. 1996). In fact, every federal appellate court to
28
consider the issue is in accord. Jones v. Dalrymple, 679 F. App'x 668, 670 (10th Cir. 2017);
2
1
Frett-Smith v. Vanterpool, 511 F.3d 396, 400 (3d Cir. 2008); Action S.A. v. Marc Rich & Co.,
2
951 F.2d 504, 507 (2d Cir. 1991); Sadat v. Mertes, 615 F.2d 1176, 118 7 (7th Cir. 1980). Coury
3
explains the rationale for this rule. A “dual citizen should not be allowed to invoke alienage
4
jurisdiction because this would give him an advantage not enjoyed by [non-dual] American
5
citizens . . . . [T]he major purpose of alienage jurisdiction is . . . to allow foreign subjects to
6
avoid real or perceived bias in the sate courts — a justification that should not be available to
7
the dual citizen who is an American.” Coury, 85 F.3d at 250.1
8
9
Coury’s reasoning applies equally here, and this order agrees with the federal appellate
courts that have considered the issue. A dual citizen of the United States and a foreign state
who is domiciled abroad cannot invoke diversity jurisdiction under Section 1332(a)(3). Thus,
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
Attorney Connell’s American citizenship defeats diversity.
12
B.
FRCP 21.
13
Pursuant to FRCP 21 district courts are permitted to drop dispensable nondiverse parties
14
from a suit. Newman-Green, 490 U.S. at 826. Whether a party is dispensable turns on whether
15
complete relief can be accorded in that party’s absence. Dawavendewa v. Salt River Project
16
Agr. Imp. & Power Dist., 276 F.3d 1150, 1155 (9th Cir. 2002).
17
Attorney Connell argues that he should be dropped from this action because he acts
18
solely as a legal representative of the two LLCs named as co-defendants, not as an actor
19
himself. He cites Newman-Green as authority for this proposition. There, however, the
20
plaintiff moved to amend his complaint to drop a non-diverse, dispensable party. Here,
21
Attorney Connell, as a defendant, seeks to unilaterally alter the complaint to drop himself from
22
the suit, a maneuver unsupported by any relevant precedent. This runs afoul of the widely
23
accepted principle that, as master of his own complaint, the plaintiff is afforded deference in
24
25
26
27
28
1
Our court of appeals has not considered whether a dual American citizen is considered a citizen of
the United States such that he cannot claim diversity as an alien under Section 1332(a)(3). In the related context
of whether diversity is defeated when a dual American citizen sues a foreign defendant of the nation in which
she holds dual citizenship, however, our court of appeals has held that “only the American nationality of the
dual citizen should be recognized under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a).” Sanchez v. Aerovias De Mexico, S.A. De C.V.,
590 F.3d 1027, 1028 (9th Cir. 2010).
3
1
who he chooses to sue. See Lincoln Prop. Co. v. Roche, 546 U.S. 81, 91 (2005); Walker
2
Distrib. Co. v. Lucky Lager Brewing Co., 323 F.2d 1, 8 (9th Cir. 1963).
3
Moreover, in Newman-Green the dropped defendant was jointly and severally liable for
4
damages along with four other co-defendants, and the Supreme Court found that the plaintiff
5
could therefore be accorded a complete recovery in the dropped defendant’s absence. 490 U.S.
6
at 829. Not so here. Attorney Connell is indispensable to this suit because plaintiff seeks
7
“possession and control of . . . any [] entity owned or controlled by Attorney Connell . . .
8
purporting to hold an interest in Casa Blanca or any asset of Tom White’s” (Probate Pet., Prayer
9
for Relief ¶ 3). In other words, the action seeks assets directly under attorney Connell’s control,
irrespective of any co-defendant’s role. Additionally, the probate petition’s allegations are
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
primarily directed against Attorney Connell in his personal capacity, not as a representative of
12
an LLC (Probate Pet. ¶¶ 29–31, 36–38). This is not like Newman-Green where another
13
defendant can supply complete recovery. Attorney Connell is the critical defendant in this suit
14
and in his absence plaintiff cannot be made whole. See Dawavendewa, 276 F.3d at 1155.
15
2.
16
District courts have jurisdiction over civil cases arising under the Constitution, laws and
NO FEDERAL QUESTION JURISDICTION.
17
treaties of the United States — so-called federal-question jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. 1331.
18
Federal-question jurisdiction is determined by looking to the face of the complaint. Merrell
19
Dow Pharm. Inc. v. Thompson, 478 U.S. 804, 808 (1986). A claim is deemed to arise under
20
federal law if it states a federal claim, or if federal issues are “(1) necessarily raised, (2) actually
21
disputed, (3) substantial, and (4) capable of resolution in federal court without disrupting the
22
federal-state balance approved by Congress.” Grable & Sons Metal Prod., Inc. v. Darue Eng’g
23
& Mfg., 545 U.S. 308 (20005). None of these criteria are met here.
24
Attorney Connell argues that this action is removable because the probate petition
25
plaintiff filed in state court is “inextricably intertwined” with the related RICO complaint that
26
he subsequently filed (Opp. at 18). He cites one decision, Sparta Surgical Corp. v. Nat’l Ass’n
27
of Sec. Dealers Incid., 159 F.3d 1209, 1213 (9th Cir. 1998), in support of this argument, but
28
Sparta is inapposite.
4
1
In Sparta, our court of appeals was analyzing only claims arising in that suit, not claims
2
pled in a separate, later-filed action. Defendants offer no support for the notion that a separate
3
lawsuit could confer federal question jurisdiction. Indeed, no legal support exists for this
4
proposition. It is well-settled that removal can only be based upon claims made by the plaintiff
5
in his complaint. Balcorta v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp., 208 F.3d 1102, 1106 (9th
6
Cir. 2000).
7
Here, the complaint pleads only state law, probate claims. No party argues otherwise.
8
Nor does the complaint raise any federal issues. The fact that Attorney Connell raises federal
9
issues in a separate action does not change the analysis. There are no federal claims, or federal
issues necessarily raised in this action, and therefore no federal-question jurisdiction.2
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
Since Attorney Connell lacks traditional grounds for removal, this order does not reach
12
the question of whether the probate exception also applies to bar him from removing this suit.
13
Furthermore, since this order remands the action, it does not reach Attorney Connell’s motion to
14
dismiss.
15
3.
16
Pursuant to Section 1447 of Title 28 of the United States Code, courts “may require
AWARD OF ATTORNEY’S FEES AND COSTS.
17
payment of just costs and any actual expenses, including attorney fees, incurred as a result of
18
the removal.” Here, such an award is warranted.
19
Defendants removed this case from state probate court with no objectively reasonable
20
basis for doing so. See Martin v. Franklin Capital Corp., 546 U.S. 132, 141 (2005). They
21
presented no relevant case law supporting removal, and indeed no authority supports removal
22
under these circumstances. Moreover, in what appears to have been an attempt to deceive
23
plaintiff and the Court, defendants failed to disclose the critical fact that Attorney Connell is a
24
United States citizen, instead deciding only to disclose his Mexican citizenship in their notice of
25
2
26
27
28
Attorney Connell also argues at length that he is not subject to personal jurisdiction in this district
(Opp. at 12–16). Where reaching subject-matter jurisdiction first is the most efficient course, however, “both
expedition and sensitivity to state courts’ coequal stature should impel the federal court to dispose of [subjectmatter jurisdiction] first.” Ruhrgas AG v. Marathon Oil Co., 526 U.S. 574, 587–88 (1999). Such is the case
here.
5
1
removal (Notice of Removal at ¶ 4). As it turns out, his American citizenship was dispositive of
2
this motion.
3
Defendants and their attorney, William Allan Cohen, removed this action unreasonably
4
and in bad faith, and plaintiff is entitled to reasonable attorney’s fees and costs incurred as a
5
result. The procedure used to determine the amount of the award is set forth in detail in the
6
companion order regarding attorney’s fees and costs.
7
CONCLUSION
motion to dismiss is DENIED AS MOOT. The Clerk Shall REMAND this action to the Superior
10
Court for the County of San Francisco and CLOSE THE FILE. The Court retains jurisdiction to
11
For the Northern District of California
Plaintiff’s motion to remand and motion for fees and costs is GRANTED. Defendants’
9
United States District Court
8
complete the process of awarding fees and expenses to the parties seeking remand.
12
13
IT IS SO ORDERED.
14
15
16
Dated: August 16, 2017.
17
WILLIAM ALSUP
18
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
6
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?