RHKids, LLC v. Castle & Cooke Mortgage Services, LLC et al

Filing 24

ORDER that Chase's motion to conduct jurisdictional discovery ECF No. 23 is denied; RHKids, LLC's Motion to Remand to State Court ECF No. 10 is denied as moot; Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the case is remanded to state court (certified copy of order and public docket sheet mailed on 02/15/2018 to Eighth Judicial District Court, A-16-735523-C). Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 2/15/2018. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KW)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

8

***

9 RHKIDS, LLC.,
10
11

Case No. 2:17-cv-01907-MMD-PAL
Plaintiff,

ORDER

v.

CASTLE & COOKE MORTGAGE
12 SERVICES, LLC, ELKHORN COMMUNITY
ASSOCIATION; and JPMORGAN CHASE
13 BANK, N.A.,
14

Defendants.

15
16

On February 9, 2018, the Court issued an order requiring Defendant JPMorgan

17

Chase Bank, N.A. (“Chase”) to supplement its Petition for Removal (“Petition”) and

18

statement regarding removal in order to provide this Court with the states of citizenship

19

of Defendant Castle & Cooke Mortgage Services, LLC (“Castle” or “the LLC”). (ECF No.

20

22.) On February 14, 2018, Chase filed a motion requesting a period of 60 days to conduct

21

jurisdictional discovery (“Motion”). (ECF No. 23.) The Court denies the Motion for two

22

reasons.

23

First, Chase admits that the managing member of the LLC appears to be a resident

24

of California. (ECF No. 23 at 4; see also ECF No. 23-3 at 3.) Because the Petition states

25

that RHKids, LLC (“RHKids”) is a citizen of California (ECF No. 1 at ¶ 4), this admission

26

on its own destroys complete diversity of the parties and, therefore, diversity jurisdiction.

27

See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1). Second, Chase contends that it has diligently sought

28

information regarding the states of citizenship of members of the LLC in response to the

1

Court’s February 9, 2018, order. (ECF No. 23 at 4.) However, it was Chase’s burden at

2

the time of removal to demonstrate that this Court has subject-matter jurisdiction over the

3

action, and the action was removed on July 12, 2017.1 In light of this unreasonable delay,

4

the Court declines to exercise its discretion to grant Chase’s request for jurisdictional

5

discovery. See Sopcak v. N. Mountain Helicopter Serv., 52 F.3d 817, 819 (9th Cir. 1995)

6

(finding that district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to give plaintiffs

7

additional time to conduct discovery when they had failed to conduct discovery during the

8

nine-month period between the filing of the complaint and the district court’s dismissal

9

order); see also Berardinelli v. Castle & Cooke Inc., 587 F.2d 37, 39 (9th Cir. 1978)

10

(finding that dismissal was proper where plaintiff did not avail himself of the opportunity

11

to conduct jurisdictional discovery during the seventh months between the filing of the

12

complaint and the grant of the motion to dismiss).

13

Because the parties are not diverse, the Court lacks diversity jurisdiction.

14

Accordingly, the Court sua sponte remands this action to state court. See United States

15

v. Cotton, 535 U.S. 625, 630 (2002) (finding that when a requirement goes to subject-

16

matter jurisdiction, courts must consider sua sponte issues that the parties have not

17

presented).
It is therefore ordered that Chase’s motion to conduct jurisdictional discovery (ECF

18
19

No. 23) is denied.
It is further ordered that RHKids, LLC’s Motion to Remand Case to State Court

20
21

(ECF No. 10) is denied as moot.

22

///

23
24
25
26
27
28

1Moreover,

Chase’s contention that it was hindered from conducting discovery into
this matter in light of the magistrate judge’s order (ECF No. 19) staying discovery in
September 2017 is unpersuasive, as Chase could have requested limited jurisdictional
discovery before this time or at any point thereafter. (See ECF No. 23 at 3.) Chase also
insists that it has been diligent in seeking the information requested in the February 9,
2018, Order since receiving the Order. (Id. at 4.) But this contention misses the point.
Chase has not been diligent in seeking the information since removal, particularly given
that removal was initiated without any knowledge of the citizenship of one of the thenserved defendants—Castle.
2

1
2
3

It is further ordered that, because this Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the
case be remanded to state court.
DATED THIS 15th day of February 2018.

4
5
6

MIRANDA M. DU
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3