HafterLaw, LLC v. Pal

Filing 37

OPINION. Signed by Judge Stanley R. Chesler on 10/27/14. (jd, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

HAFTERLAW, LLC,
Plaintiff,
v.
NEELU PAL, MD,
Defendant.

Civil Action No. 14-5795 (SRC)
OPINION

CHESLER, District Judge
This matter was opened by the Court sua sponte to address its concern that it lacks
subject matter jurisdiction over this case. The Court issued an Order To Show Cause on
September 19, 2014 [docket entry 34], directing removing Defendant Neelu Pal, MD
(“Defendant”) to demonstrate that this Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this case
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a), upon which Defendant based her removal of this action from
the District Court of the State of Nevada, Clark County. (As the September 19, 2014 Order
noted, this action was removed to the United States District Court for the District of Nevada but
subsequently transferred to this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1406.) In particular, the Court
expressed in the Order To Show Cause that upon its review of the Complaint and Notice of
Removal, it was unable to satisfy itself of diversity jurisdiction because the removing Defendant
had failed to identify the citizenship of Plaintiff HafterLaw, LLC. The Third Circuit has held
that ““the citizenship of an LLC is determined by the citizenship of its members.” Zambelli
Fireworks Mfg. Co., Inc. v Wood, 592 F.3d 412, 420, (3d Cir. 2010). Defendant, however, has
not pled the citizenship of each member of the Plaintiff LLC, and without such information, the
1

Court cannot determine that there is complete diversity of citizenship between the parties, as
required to establish subject matter jurisdiction under § 1332(a).
Defendant has failed to submit a response to the Court’s Order To Show Cause. As such,
she has failed to carry her burden, as the removing party, of demonstrating that there is federal
subject matter jurisdiction over the action. Samuel-Bassett v. KIA Motors Am., Inc., 357 F.3d
392, 396 (3d Cir. 2004). Title 28 U.S.C. § 1441 must be strictly construed against removal, with
all doubts to be resolved in favor of remand. Batoff v. State Farm Ins. Co., 977 F.2d 848, 851
(3d Cir. 1992). Because the Court remains unsatisfied that sufficient information has been pled
by Defendant to establish that federal question jurisdiction exists, this action must be remanded
to the state court in which it was initiated. An appropriate order will be filed.

s/ Stanley R. Chesler
STANLEY R. CHESLER
United States District Judge
Dated: October 27, 2014

2