Seibert v. The Ritz Carlton Hotel Company, LLC

Filing 27

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE. If Defendant does not, by 7/13/2018, file an amended Notice of Removal, the court will remand this action to San Mateo County Superior Court. The Trial Setting Conference is CONTINUED to 11:00 a.m. on 7/19/2018 in order to allow for the resolution of the jurisdictional question. Signed by Judge Edward J. Davila on 7/10/2018. (ejdlc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/10/2018)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6

SAN JOSE DIVISION

7
8

MICHAEL SEIBERT,

Case No. 5:17-cv-03650-EJD

Plaintiff,
9

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

v.
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

THE RITZ CARLTON HOTEL
COMPANY, LLC, et al.,
Defendants.
The instant action was removed to this court by Defendant The Ritz Carlton Hotel

14

Company, LLC. As it must, the court has reviewed the Notice of Removal and other relevant

15

pleadings to determine whether Defendant has adequately established a basis for subject matter

16

jurisdiction. See Henderson v. Shinseki, 562 U.S. 428, 434 (2011) (“[F]ederal courts have an

17

independent obligation to ensure that they do not exceed the scope of their jurisdiction, and

18

therefore they must raise and decide jurisdictional questions that the parties either overlook or

19

elect not to press.”); see also Snell v. Cleveland, Inc., 316 F.3d 822, 826 (9th Cir. 2002) (“[A]

20

court may raise the question of subject matter jurisdiction, sua sponte, at any time during the

21

pendency of the action, even on appeal.”). It has not.

22

To begin, the court is mindful that, in contrast to state courts, “[f]ederal courts are courts of

23

limited jurisdiction.” Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994).

24

“[S]ubject-matter jurisdiction refers to the court’s statutory or constitutional power to adjudicate

25

the case.” Pistor v. Garcia, 791 F.3d 1104, 1110-11 (9th Cir. 2015) (internal quotations omitted).

26

The court looks to the jurisdictional allegations in a Notice of Removal because “[a] party

27

invoking the federal court’s jurisdiction has the burden of proving the actual existence of subject

28

Case No.: 5:17-cv-03650-EJD
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
1

1

matter jurisdiction.” Thompson v. McCombe, 99 F.3d 352, 353 (9th Cir. 1996); 28 U.S.C. §

2

1446(a) (requiring a notice of removal contain a “short and plain statement of the grounds for

3

removal”).

4

Federal jurisdiction can generally arise in two ways: (1) from the presence of a federal
question, or (2) from diversity of the parties. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332. For subject matter

6

jurisdiction to arise on the basis of diversity under § 1332, “there must be complete diversity of

7

citizenship between the parties opposed in interest.” Kuntz v. Lamar Corp., 385 F.3d 1177, 1181

8

(9th Cir. 2004). The amount in controversy must also exceed $75,000. Naffe v. Frey, 789 F.3d

9

1030, 1039 (9th Cir. 2015). “Absent unusual circumstances, a party seeking to invoke diversity

10

jurisdiction should be able to allege affirmatively the actual citizenship of the relevant parties” in

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

5

order to confirm that all parties are diverse. Kanter v. Warner-Lambert Co., 265 F.3d 853, 857

12

(9th Cir. 2001); accord DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Cuno, 547 U.S. 332, 342 n.3 (2006) (Because

13

“federal courts lack jurisdiction unless the contrary appears affirmatively from the record, the

14

party asserting federal jurisdiction when it is challenged has the burden of establishing it.”).

15

Here, Defendant alleges in the Notice of Removal that Plaintiff is a California citizen.

16

Defendant also represents that it is “incorporated under the laws of the State of Delaware with its

17

principal place of business in Bethesda, Maryland.” But Defendant is a limited liability company,

18

and this statement is not enough. Rather than merely alleging its state of incorporation and

19

principal place of business, Defendant must establish these facts for each of Defendant’s members

20

because “an LLC is a citizen of every state of which its owners/members are citizens.” Johnson v.

21

Columbia Props. Anchorage, LP, 437 F.3d 894, 899 (9th Cir. 2006). The court cannot confirm

22

that diversity jurisdiction exists without this additional information.

23

Because the Notice of Removal does not satisfy Defendant’s obligation to affirmatively

24

demonstrate federal subject matter jurisdiction, the court issues an order to show cause why this

25

action should not be remanded. If Defendant does not, by July 13, 2018, file a written response

26

which establishes this court’s jurisdiction in a manner consistent with the preceding discussion,

27

the court will remand this action to San Mateo County Superior Court. No hearing will be held on

28

Case No.: 5:17-cv-03650-EJD
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
2

1
2
3

the order to show cause unless otherwise ordered by the court.
The Trial Setting Conference scheduled for July 12, 2018, is CONTINUED to 11:00 a.m.
on July 19, 2018, in order to allow for the resolution of the jurisdictional question.

4
5
6

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: July 10, 2018
______________________________________
EDWARD J. DAVILA
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

Case No.: 5:17-cv-03650-EJD
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
3