JOHN PAUL TYAHLA v. CHIPOTLE MEXICAN GRILL, INC. et al
Filing
20
OPINION. Signed by Judge William H. Walls on 12/20/17. (cm, )
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
CLOSE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
JOFIN PAUL TYAHLA,
Plaintiffs,
OPINION
V.
Civ. No. 2:17-cv-04366 (WHW) (CLW)
CHIPOTLE MEXICAN GRILL, INC,;
AL SPECTOR LLC, a New Jersey LLC;
ABC CORPORATIONS 1-10;
XYZ PARTERSHIPS 1-10;
ABC ASSOCIATIONS 1-10;
and JOHN DOES (unidentified individuals), 1-10,
Defendants.
Walls., Senior District Judge
Plaintiff moves to remand this action to state court, arguing that the parties are no longer
diverse because of the addition of a new defendant. Decided without oral argument under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 78, Plaintiffs motion is granted.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Plaintiff John Paul Tyalha, a New Jersey citizen, began this action in New Jersey state
court, complaining that he was injured at a Chipotle restaurant in Westfield, New Jersey after
slipping on ice and snow. Compi. ECF No. 1
¶J 1—2,
14; Not. of Removal, ECF No. 1 ¶4; Cert.
of Douglas S. Schwartz, ¶ 2. Chipotle removed the action on June 15, 2017, alleging complete
diversity and an amount in controversy greater than $75,000. Not. of Removal ¶J 6—9.
The original Defendants were Chipotle Mexican Grill Inc., John Does 1-10, ABC
Corporations 1-10, and XYZ Partnerships 1-10. Compi.
¶J 2—8. All fictitious defendants were
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
CLOSE
identified as those who “own, possess, control, and/or are responsible for maintenance of the
sidewalks and/or the property where the incident occurred.” Id.
Afier limited discovery, Plaintiff identified Al Spector LLC (“Spector”) as the landlord of
the Chipotle restaurant, and filed a letter requesting leave to file an Amended Complaint naming
Spector as a defendant. Letter from Douglas S. Schwartz to M.J. Waldor, ECF No. 9, at 1;
Schwartz Cert.
¶J 10—12. Plaintiff also stated that because “the defendant to be added is a New
Jersey Limited Liability Corporation [sic],” Plaintiff intended to file a motion for remand to state
court. Schwartz Letter, at 2. Plaintiff submits that pursuant to the terms of the lease, Spector was
responsible for “clearing snow and ice from the sidewalk area in front of the premises.” Schwartz
Cert.
¶J 12—13.
Defendant Chipotle did not oppose the request to file an Amended Complaint, and
declined to comment on the anticipated motion to remand until it was able to review the
amended pleadings. Letter from Justin T. Nastro to M.J. Waldor, ECF No. 10, at 1.
Magistrate Judge Waldor granted leave to file an amended complaint on November 7,
2017. Text Order ECF No. 11. The Plaintiff filed an amended complaint that day, naming
Spector as a defendant. Am. Compl. ECF No. 12. The complaint alleges that Spector is a “New
Jersey limited liability company, incorporated under the laws of the State of New Jersey and
authorized to do business in the State of New Jersey.” Id.
¶ 6.
That same day, Plaintiff also filed a motion to remand this action, arguing that “the
addition of Al Spector LLC, a New Jersey limited liability company as a direct defendant
destroys complete diversity.” Schwartz Cert.
¶ 18.
On November 27, 2017, Defendant Chipotle filed an answer to the Amended Complaint,
and a Crossclaim against Spector. Ans. ECF No. 16. Chipotle denied “knowledge or information
2
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
CLOSE
sufficient to form a belief’ as to Spector’s citizenship. Ans.
¶ 6. On November 29, Spector filed
an Answer to the Amended Complaint and Crossclaim, admitting that it is a New Jersey LLC.
Ans. ECF No. 17. Spector also filed a Corporate Disclosure Statement that day, which stated:
“Defendant, AL Spector LLC is a New Jersey Limited Liability Company. The sole members of
AL Spector LLC are Joseph Spector and Marc Spector with one hundred percent ownership
interest in defendant’s business. Thus AL Spector LLC is a citizen of New Jersey.” Corp. Disci.
Statement, ECF No. 18, at 2.
Neither Defendant has responded to or opposed the Motion to Remand.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
This Court has original jurisdiction over matters in which there is complete diversity of
citizenship between the parties and the amount in controversy exceeds $ 75,000. 28 U.S.C.
§
1332. Complete diversity requires that “no plaintiff be a citizen of the same state as any
defendant.” Zambelli Fireworks Mfg. Co., Inc. v. Wood, 592 F.3d 412, 419 (3d Cir 2010) (citing
Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Servs.s Inc., 545 U.S. 546, 553 (2005). “[T]he citizenship of an
LLC is determined by the citizenship of its members.” Lincoln Ben. Ltfe Co. v. AEILiJe, LLC,
800 F.3d 99, 105 (3d Cir. 2015) (quoting Zambelli, 592 F.3d at 420).
28 U.S.C.
§ 1447 provides that, when “it appears that the district court lacks subject
matter jurisdiction, the case shall be remanded.” The removing party has the burden of
establishing that jurisdiction exists, and removal statutes “are to be strictly construed against
removal [with] all doubts.
.
.
resolved in favor of remand.” Boyer v. Snap-On Tools Corp., 913
F.2d 108, 111 (3d Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 1085 (1991) (internal citation omitted).
3
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
CLOSE
DISCUSSION
Plaintiff contends that the “addition of AL Spector, LLC, a new jersey limited liability
company as a direct defendant destroys complete diversity.” Schwartz, Cert.
¶ 1$. Plaintiff
identifies that Spector is a New Jersey LLC, and that its mailing address is in Westfield, New
Jersey. Id.
¶J 15—16.
Because the citizenship of an LLC is determined by the citizenship of its members,
Lincoln Ben. Ltfe Co., $00 F.3d at 105, Plaintiff is incorrect to reference the state of legal
organization as the pertinent factor to determine citizenship. However, in its Corporate
Disclosure Statement, Spector submits that it is has two members with one hundred percent
ownership, and is therefore a citizen of New Jersey. ECF No. 18, at 2.
As indicated, the removing party has the burden of establishing that jurisdiction exists.
Boyer, 913 F.2d at 11. Neither defendant has put forward any facts or argument to suggest that
Spector is diverse from Plaintiff, or that the addition of Spector was improper or fraudulent, and
Defendants have therefore failed to meet their burden. The Defendants have not responded to the
Motion to Remand, and Spector indicated in its Corporate Disclosure Statement that it has two
members with one hundred percent ownership, and that it is therefore a citizen of New Jersey.
Although the disclosure statement does not explicitly state that the two members are residents of
New Jersey, the removing party has the burden of establishing that jurisdiction exists, and
removal statutes “are to be strictly construed against removal [with] all doubts
favor of remand.” Id.
4
.
.
.
resolved in
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
CLOSE
Because Plaintiffs have adequately alleged that Defendant Spector is a New Jersey citizen
and Defendants have not met their burden of establishing complete diversity, Plaintiffs’ motion
to remand is granted. An appropriate order follows.
Date:
H&. Wni”H. Walls
United tates Senior District Judge
5
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?