Burge et al v. Sunrise Medical (US) L.L.C. et al
Filing
48
ORDER granting 29 Motion for Remand. This case is remanded pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) to the District Court of Boulder County, Colorado where it was filed as Civil Case No. 2013CV031044. By Judge Philip A. Brimmer on 12/9/2013.(klyon, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Philip A. Brimmer
Civil Action No. 13-cv-02215-PAB-MEH
TAMMY BURGE and
CHESTER BURGE,
Plaintiffs,
v.
SUNRISE MEDICAL (US) LLC,
SUNRISE MEDICAL HHG, INC., d/b/a Sunrise Mobility Inc.,
SOVEREIGN BOREALIS S, LLC, and
SOVEREIGN BOREALIS H, LLC,
Defendants.
ORDER
This matter is before the Court on a Motion for Remand [Docket No. 29] filed by
plaintiffs Tammy and Chester Burge. This motion is fully briefed and ripe for
disposition.
I. BACKGROUND
Plaintiffs, citizens of Colorado, filed this action in the District Court of Boulder
County, Colorado. Docket No. 1 at 1. On August 16, 2013, defendants filed a Notice of
Removal claiming that this Court has jurisdiction based on diversity of citizenship
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Id. at 3. The Court entered an Order to Show Cause
directing defendants to show cause why the case should not be dismissed for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction. Docket No. 11 at 4-5.
Defendants Sunrise Medical (US) LLC and Sunrise Medical HHG, Inc.
responded by providing assertions concerning the citizenship of defendant limited
liability companies (“LLCs”).1 Specifically, defendants asserted that defendant
Sovereign Borealis H, LLC and Sovereign Borealis S, LLC’s sole member is Sovereign
Borealis, LLC. Docket No. 15 at 2. Sovereign Borealis, LLC’s sole member is SCTIC,
LLC, whose sole member is Sovereign Capital Holdings, LLC. Id. Sovereign Capital
Holdings, LLC’s sole member is Sovereign Capital Management Holdings, LLC, whose
sole member is Todd Mikles, a resident and citizen of California. Id. Defendants
further asserted that defendant Sunrise Medical (US) LLC’s (“Sunrise”) sole member is
Apollo BidCo S.A.R.L. (“Apollo”) – an entity incorporated in Luxembourg. Docket No.
12 at 2-3. The Court discharged the Order to Show Cause. Docket No. 16.
Plaintiffs’ Motion to Remand challenges the citizenship of Sunrise, arguing that its only
member, Apollo, is a S.A.R.L.,2 which should be considered an LLC for jurisdictional
purposes and, as a result, that defendants have failed to adequately allege the
citizenship of Apollo’s members. Docket No. 29 at 6. Defendants challenge plaintiffs’
characterization of a S.A.R.L. as an LLC. Docket No. 35 at 5.
II. ANALYSIS
“The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions where the
1
Because only Sunrise Medical (US) LLC and Sunrise Medical HHG, Inc. filed a
response to the present motion, all references to “defendants” in this Order, unless
otherwise indicated, are to Sunrise Medical (US) LLC and Sunrise Medical HHG.
2
A Société à Responsabilité Limitée, or S.A.R.L., under Luxembourg law is a
limited liability company where the number of partners is limited to 40, partners’ liability
is limited to the amount of their investment, and the entity is run by one or multiple
managers who need not be partners. Bonn Schmitt Steichen, Luxembourg Law Digest
LUX - 2 (2007) [Docket No. 29-1 at 4].
2
matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and
costs, and is between – (1) citizens of different States; (2) citizens of a State and
citizens or subjects of a foreign state; [and] (3) citizens of different States and in which
citizens or subjects of a foreign state are additional parties . . . .” 28 U.S.C. 1332(a). In
every case and at every stage of the proceeding, a federal court must satisfy itself as to
its own jurisdiction, even if doing so requires sua sponte action. See Citizens
Concerned for Separation of Church & State v. City & Cnty. of Denver, 628 F.2d 1289,
1297 (10th Cir. 1980). It is well established that “[t]he party invoking federal jurisdiction
bears the burden of establishing such jurisdiction as a threshold matter.” Radil v.
Sanborn W. Camps, Inc., 384 F.3d 1220, 1224 (10th Cir. 2004). Therefore, when a
defendant removes a case from state court asserting the existence of diversity
jurisdiction, the removing defendant has the burden of establishing that the jurisdictional
prerequisites of § 1332 have been satisfied. Martin v. Franklin Capital Corp., 251 F.3d
1284, 1290 (10th Cir. 2001). Absent an assurance that jurisdiction exists, a court may
not proceed in a case. See Cunningham v. BHP Petroleum Great Britain PLC, 427
F.3d 1238, 1245 (10th Cir. 2005). Further, where uncertainties exist regarding the
Court’s jurisdiction, those uncertainties are resolved in favor of a remand. Martin, 251
F.3d at 1290.
While, for diversity purposes, “a corporation shall be deemed to be a citizen of
every State and foreign state by which it has been incorporated and of the State or
foreign state where it has its principal place of business,” 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1), these
considerations are irrelevant to the determination of an LLC’s citizenship. Although the
3
Supreme Court and the Tenth Circuit have not spoken specifically on the issue of
citizenship of LLCs, the consensus in this District and throughout the circuits is that an
LLC, much like a partnership, is deemed to be a citizen of all of the states of which its
members are citizens. See U.S. Advisor, LLC v. Berkshire Prop. Advisors, No. 09-cv00697-PAB-CBS, 2009 WL 2055206, at * 2 (D. Colo. July 10, 2009) (listing cases).
Furthermore, when an entity consists of multiple tiers of ownership and control,
the entire structure must be considered for diversity purposes. In other words, when an
entity is composed of multiple layers of constituent entities, the citizenship
determination requires an exploration of the citizenship of the constituent entities as far
down as necessary to unravel fully the citizenship of the entity before the court. See
U.S. Advisor, LLC, 2009 WL 2055206, at *2; SREI-Miami, LLC v. Thomas, No. 08-cv00730-MSK-BNB, 2008 WL 1944322, at *1 (D. Colo. May 2, 2008); see also Hicklin
Eng’g, L.C. v. Bartell, 439 F.3d 346, 347 (7th Cir. 2006); Turner Bros. Crane & Rigging,
LLC v. Kingboard Chem. Holding Ltd., No. 06-88-A, 2007 WL 2848154, at *4-5 (M.D.
La. Sept. 24, 2007); cf. Carden, 494 U.S. at 195 (“[W]e reject the contention that to
determine, for diversity purposes, the citizenship of an artificial entity, the court may
consult the citizenship of less than all of the entity’s members.”). This principle holds
true for domestic LLCs with foreign members. Gen. Tech. Applications, Inc. v. Exro
Ltda, 388 F.3d 114, 120 (4th Cir. 2004) (finding that domestic LLC had the citizenship
of its foreign members).
Because Sunrise is an LLC, it is defendants’ burden to show the citizenship of
Apollo, Sunrise’s sole member. The parties disagree as to how a S.A.R.L. should be
4
viewed for the purposes of diversity jurisdiction. As defendants correctly point out, no
binding authority exists on this issue. See, e.g., V & M Star, LP v. Centimark Corp., 596
F.3d 354, 357 (6th Cir. 2010) (“no controlling precedent exists regarding how to
determine the citizenship of a French S.A.R.L. for diversity-jurisdiction purposes”).
However, the Court need not resolve this issue because defendants have failed to show
Apollo’s citizenship regardless of whether Apollo is considered a corporation or an LLC.
Compare Indus. Fuel Co., Inc. v. Invista S.A.R.L., LLC, 2008 WL 619189, at *3
(W.D.N.C. Feb 5, 2008) (alternatively applying corporation and LLC analysis to
determine citizenship of a S.A.R.L.).
A. Jurisdictional Analysis – Corporation
Defendants assert that Apollo is incorporated in Luxembourg. Docket No. 35 at
5; Docket No. 35-1 at 2. Thus, assuming that Apollo is a corporation for jurisdictional
purposes, defendants must adequately demonstrate where Apollo’s principal place of
business is located. See § 1332(c)(1).
“We draw no distinction between corporations incorporated in a state of the
United States and those incorporated in a foreign country when determining the
corporation’s citizenship for purposes of diversity jurisdiction.” Nike, Inc v. Comercial
Iberica de Exclusivas Deportivas, S.A., 20 F.3d 987, 990 (9th Cir. 1994). A
corporation’s principal place of business is the place where “a corporation’s officers
direct, control, and coordinate the corporation’s activities.” Hertz Corp. v. Friend, 559
U.S. 77, 93 (2010) (adopting “nerve center” test for determining a corporation’s principal
place of business). Normally this is the corporation’s headquarters, “provided that the
5
headquarters is the actual center of direction, control, and coordination . . . and not
simply an office where the corporation holds its board meetings.” Id.
Defendants’ response brief and the attached affidavit of Sunrise Vice President
Peter Whittle state that Apollo “has its principal place of business at 65 Boulevard
Grande-Duchesse, Charlotte, Luxembourg L-1331.” Docket No. 35 at 5; Docket No.
35-1 at 2. Identification of an address, however, does not indicate that Apollo’s officers
direct and control the corporation’s activities from that location. See Spencer v. Pocono
Int’l Raceway, Inc., 2012 WL 2050168, at *2 (M.D. Pa. June 6, 2012) (“a P.O. box may
not serve as a principal place of business”). Defendants assert that Apollo “does not
have any shareholders or managers that are citizens of Colorado, its principal place of
business is in Luxembourg, its managers are domiciled in Luxembourg, and it is not
licensed to conduct business in Colorado.” Docket No. 35 at 5. The fact that Apollo’s
managers are domiciled in Luxembourg does not, by itself, establish Luxembourg as
Apollo’s nerve center. See Hertz, 559 U.S. at 93 (“nerve center” is not a place where a
corporation simply holds its board meetings). Finally, stating that Apollo is not licensed
to conduct business in Colorado is insufficient given that removing defendants must
affirmatively establish jurisdictional facts. Martin, 251 F.3d at 1290. A removing
defendant may not invoke the Court’s jurisdiction by negative inference. See Meyn
Am., LLC v. Omtron USA LLC, 856 F. Supp. 2d 728, 733 (M.D.N.C. 2012) (finding
defendant LLC’s notice of removal deficient where notice stated only that LLC’s sole
member “is a foreign corporation with a principal place of business in Cyprus; it is not a
resident of North Carolina”).
6
When an action is removed on the basis of diversity, a court must be certain that
the requirements of § 1332 are met. Getty Oil Corp. v. Ins. Co. of N. Am., 841 F.2d
1254, 1258 (5th Cir. 1988); see Martin, 251 F.3d at 1290 (holding that defendant’s
claim regarding amount in controversy does not enjoy the same presumption of
accuracy as the plaintiff’s original allegations). Accordingly, because defendants have
not provided sufficient factual support for their claim that Luxembourg is Apollo’s
principal place of business, the Court resolves the uncertainties that exist as to Apollo’s
citizenship as a corporation in favor of remand.
B. Jurisdictional Analysis – LLC
The Court next analyzes Apollo’s citizenship on the assumption that its
organizational form is comparable to an LLC.3 From this perspective, defendants’
3
A jurisdictional analysis of a foreign entity’s citizenship is governed by federal
law. JPMorgan Chase Bank v. Traffic Stream (BVI) Infrastructure Ltd., 536 U.S. 88, 9899 (2002) (“While it is perfectly true that ‘every independent nation [has the inherent
right] to determine for itself ... what classes of persons shall be entitled to its
citizenship,’ our jurisdictional concern here is with the meaning of ‘citizen’ and ‘subject’
as those terms are used in § 1332(a)(2).” (quoting United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169
U.S. 649, 668 (1898)). Relevant characteristics common to LLCs include a corporatestyle liability shield limiting each member’s liability, governance through adopted bylaws, and the option for members to manage the entity. Additionally, although a
member can transfer shares, a transferee is statutorily restricted from participating in
the management of the entity. In re Abbale, 475 B.R. 334, 340 (Bankr. E.D.N.Y 2012)
(quoting New York LLC statute, “an assignment of a membership interest does not . . .
entitle the assigneee to participate in the management and affairs of the limited liability
company”); In re Albright, 291 B.R. 538, 540 (Bankr. D. Colo. 2003) (“the [Colorado]
Limited Liability Company Act requires the unanimous consent of ‘other members’ in
order to allow a transferee to participate in the management of the LLC”).
Plaintiffs cite to the Luxembourg Law Digest, which describes a S.A.R.L. as a
limited liability company where the number of partners is limited to 40, “partners’ liability
is limited to amount of their investment,” and managers responsible for running the
company need not be members. Bonn Schmitt Steichen, Luxembourg Law Digest LUX
- 2 (2007) [Docket No. 29-1 at 4]. Additionally, shares are personal and several
conditions are placed on the transfer of shares. Id.
7
allegations are insufficient. Defendants fail to affirmatively assert the number or
citizenship of Apollo’s members. Moreover, defendants fail to explain whether Apollo’s
shareholders are its “members” for purposes of the LLC analysis. The remaining
jurisdictional allegations are irrelevant. Defendants’ claim that Apollo is not licensed to
conduct business in Colorado is irrelevant to determining the citizenship of an LLC, as
are defendants’ assertions concerning Apollo’s principal place of business and country
of origin. Docket No. 35 at 5; see U.S. Advisor, LLC, 2009 WL 2055206, at *2. Even
the assertion that Apollo’s “managers are domiciled in Luxembourg” does not aid
defendants’ argument. Id. Defendants do not attempt to equate Apollo’s managers
and members, and therefore the citizenship of an LLC’s managers is not relevant.
Moreover, stating that “Apollo . . . does not have shareholders or managers that are
citizens of Colorado,” id., is insufficient where a party asserting diversity jurisdiction is
required to affirmatively assert the citizenship of the parties. See D.B. Zwirn Special
Opportunities Fund, L.P. v. Mehrotra, 661 F.3d 124, 126 (1st Cir. 2011) (“That
[defendant] is a citizen of Rhode Island and that [plaintiff] is not considered a citizen of
Rhode Island ‘is not sufficient to give jurisdiction in a Court of the United States.’”
(quoting Cameron v. Hodges, 127 U.S. 322, 324 (1888))). Accordingly, the Court finds
that defendants have failed to show the citizenship of Apollo’s members and, as such,
have not fully shown the citizenship of Sunrise. Thus, the Court resolves the
uncertainty in favor of remand.
III. CONCLUSION
Accordingly, it is
8
ORDERED that plaintiffs’ Motion for Remand [Docket No. 29] is GRANTED and
this case is remanded pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) to the District Court of Boulder
County, Colorado where it was filed as Civil Case No. 2013CV031044.
DATED December 9, 2013.
BY THE COURT:
s/Philip A. Brimmer
PHILIP A. BRIMMER
United States District Judge
9
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?