Holman Building Associates, LP v. AMCO Insurance Company

Filing 13

ORDER REMANDING CASE. This action is REMANDED to Monterey County Superior Court. The Clerk shall close this file. Signed by Judge Edward J. Davila on 3/6/2017. (ejdlc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/6/2017)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6

SAN JOSE DIVISION

7
8

HOLMAN BUILDING ASSOCIATES, LP,

Case No. 5:17-cv-00899-EJD

Plaintiff,
9

ORDER REMANDING CASE

v.
10
11

AMCO INSURANCE COMPANY,

United States District Court
Northern District of California

Defendant.
12
13

On February 24, 2017, Magistrate Judge Nathanael Cousins issued an order to show cause

14

regarding subject matter jurisdiction requiring Defendant AMCO Insurance Company (“AMCO”)

15

to file a response “presenting facts to the Court demonstrating that each member of [Plaintiff

16

Holman Building Associates LP] is diverse from AMCO.” Dkt. No. 6. Judge Cousins observed

17

that in a diversity action involving a limited partnership like this one, the court must consider the

18

citizenship of each limited partner in assessing the existence of federal jurisdiction. Id. (citing

19

Carden v. Arkoma Assocs., 494 U.S. 185, 195 (1990); Grupo Dataflux v. Atlas Glob. Grp., L.P.,

20

541 U.S. 567, 569 (2004)); Johnson v. Columbia Props. Anchorage, LP, 437 F.3d 894, 899 (9th

21

Cir. 2006) (holding that a limited partnership “is a citizen of every state of which its

22

owners/members are citizens”). AMCO’s Notice of Removal was facially defective because it did

23

not supply this information for each partner of Holman Building Associates LP, despite AMCO’s

24

obligation to provide it. See Kanter v. Warner-Lambert Co., 265 F.3d 853, 857 (9th Cir. 2001)

25

(“Absent unusual circumstances, a party seeking to invoke diversity jurisdiction should be able to

26

allege affirmatively the actual citizenship of the relevant parties.”); DaimlerChrysler Corp. v.

27

Cuno, 547 U.S. 332, 342 n.3 (2006) (Because “federal courts lack jurisdiction unless the contrary

28

1
Case No.: 5:17-cv-00899-EJD
ORDER REMANDING CASE

1

appears affirmatively from the record, the party asserting federal jurisdiction when it is challenged

2

has the burden of establishing it.”).

3

This case has since been reassigned to the undersigned, and AMCO filed a timely response

4

to the order to show cause indicating that it lacks knowledge of the residence locations for any of

5

Holman Building Associates LP’s partners. Dkt. No. 12. It also states, however, that counsel has

6

confirmed in an email that no partners are residents of AMCO’s state of incorporation and

7

principal place of business. Id.
AMCO’s response does not satisfy its burden to affirmatively demonstrate federal subject

9

matter jurisdiction under these circumstances. Statements like the one offered by AMCO, which

10

does not for each of the partners of Holman Building Associates LP “identify of what state they

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

8

are a citizen nor whether they are composed of another layer of partnerships,” have been rejected

12

by the Ninth Circuit as too conclusory to establish complete diversity. Lindley Contours, LLC v.

13

AABB Fitness Holdings, Inc., 414 Fed. Appx. 62, 65 (9th Cir. 2011).

14

Despite an opportunity to correct its deficient Notice of Removal, AMCO has not

15

adequately established diversity of the parties. The court must therefore presume that it lacks

16

jurisdiction to proceed further. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377

17

(1994) (holding that “[i]t is to be presumed that a cause lies outside” federal jurisdiction).

18

Accordingly, this action is REMANDED to Monterey County Superior Court.

19

The Clerk shall close this file.

20
21
22

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 6, 2017
______________________________________
EDWARD J. DAVILA
United States District Judge

23
24
25
26
27
28

2
Case No.: 5:17-cv-00899-EJD
ORDER REMANDING CASE