JONES v. SKYVIEW MANAGEMENT, LLC et al

Filing 9

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER THAT PLAINTIFF ANGELA JONES'S MOTION TO REMAND IS DENIED; ETC.. SIGNED BY HONORABLE THOMAS N. ONEILL, JR ON 7/11/17. 7/11/17 ENTERED AND E-MAILED.(jl, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

ANGELA JONES
CIVIL ACTION

v.
NO. 17-2347
SKYVIEW MANAGEMENT, LLC;
VRAJ BRIG PA, LLC and WYNDHAM
HOTEL GROUP

FILED
111:.E~IKMJllN,

Oerk

~~flt¥,.;_.,.~Dep. Clerk

July 11, 2017

O'NEILL, J.

MEMORANDUM
Currently pending in this matter is a motion by plaintiff Angela Jones to remand the case
to the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County. Upon consideration of the parties' briefs,
I will deny the motion.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND
On April 21, 201 7, plaintiff Angela Jones filed a praecipe to issue writ of summons and
i

demanded ajury trial in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County against defendants
Skyview Management, LLC, Vraj Brig PA, LLC and Wyndham Hotel Group. Am. Notice of
Removal, ECF No. 4, if 1. Plaintiffs praecipe and a writ of summons were served on defendant
Wyndham Hotel Group on April 27, 2017. Id.

ii 2.

Defendants filed a notice of removal, under

28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(3), on May 23, 2017. Id. ii 3. As removal was premised on diversity
jurisdiction, I ordered counsel for defendants to file an amended notice of removal to more
specifically aver the residences and citizenship of the members of Skyview Management, LLC
and Vrag Brig, LLC. Order, ECF No. 2. Defendants filed that amended notice of removal on
June 13, 2017. Am. Notice of Removal, ECF No. 4.

According to the amended notice, plaintiff is a citizen of the State of Illinois. Id. if 9.
Defendant Skyview Management, LLC is a limited liability company and sole member entity
with its registered address and principal place of business located at 735 Highway 35 North,
Asbury Park, New Jersey. At all relevant times, the sole member of Skyview Management, LLC
was Ravi Sheth, located at 143 Valesi Drive, Morganville, New Jersey. Id. if 5. Defendant Vraj
Brig PA, LLC is a limited liability company and sole member entity with its registered address
and principal place of business located at 2015 Penrose Avenue, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. At
all relevant times, the sole member ofVraj Brig PA, LLC was Ravi Sheth, located at 143 Valesi
Drive, Morganville, New Jersey. Id. if 6. Defendant Wyndham Hotel Group is a corporation
incorporated in the State of Delaware with its principal place of business located at 22 Sylvan
Way, Parsippany, New Jersey. Id. if 7.
Defendants allege, on information and belief, that the incident giving rise to plaintiff's
claims occurred on premises operated by defendant Skyview Management. Id. if 8. Plaintiffs
praecipe to issue writ of summons seeks damages in excess of $50,000, id.

if 11 &

Ex. A, and

defendants surmise that the amount in controversy in this matter is in excess of $75,000. Id. if
13. To date, a formal complaint has not been filed or served by plaintiff, preventing defendants
from ascertaining the specific injuries and damages allegedly sustained in the slip and fall
incident that occurred on December 26, 2015. Id.

if 12.

On June 21, 2017, plaintiff filed a motion to remand this matter to state court based on
the "forum defendant" rule. 1 Pl.'s Mot. to Remand, ECF No. 5. Defendant responded on June
26, 2017. Defs.' Resp. Opp'n Mot. to Remand, ECF No. 7.

Plaintiff's motion to remand does not question defendants' assumption that the amount in
controversy exceeds $75,000.
2

STANDARD OF REVIEW

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a), a defendant may remove a civil action filed in a state court if
the federal court would have had original jurisdiction over the action. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). A
defendant seeking removal of an action must file a petition for removal with the district court
within thirty days of plaintiffs service of the complaint upon defendant. See 28 U.S.C. §
1446(b). "The defendants bear the burden of establishing removal jurisdiction and compliance
with all pertinent procedural requirements." Winnick v. Pratt, No. 03-1612, 2003 WL 21204467,
at *1 (E.D.Pa. May 20, 2003), citing Boyer v. Snap--On Tools Corp., 913 F.2d 108, 111 (3d
Cir.1990); see also Palmer v. Univ. of Med. and Dentistry ofN.J., 605 F. Supp. 2d 624, 627
(D.N.J. 2009) ("A party opposing remand must show that removal was proper.").
Once an action is removed, a plaintiff may challenge removal by moving to remand the
case back to state court. Cook v. Soft Sheen Carson, Inc., No. 08-1542, 2008 WL 4606305, at *1
(D.N.J. Oct. 15, 2008), citing 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). Remand to the state court is appropriate for
"(1) lack of district court subject matter jurisdiction or (2) a defect in the removal procedure."
PAS v. Travelers Ins. Co., 7 F.3d 349, 352 (3d Cir. 1993). Remand is mandatory and can occur
at any time during the litigation ifthe court determines that it lacks federal subject matter
jurisdiction. Kimmel v. DeGasperi, No. 00-143, 2000 WL 420639, at *1 (E.D. Pa. Apr. 7, 2000),
citing 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). A motion to remand the case on the basis of any defect in the
removal procedure, however, must be submitted within thirty days after filing of the notice of
removal under section 1446(a). 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c); N. Penn Water Auth. v. Bae Sys.
Aerospace Elec., Inc., No. 04-5030, 2005 WL 1279091, at *5 (E.D. Pa. May 25, 2005). Upon a
motion to remand, "[i]t is always the removing party's burden to prove the propriety ofremoval,
and any doubts about the existence of federal jurisdiction must be resolved in favor of remand."

3

Lumbennans Mut. Cas. Co. v. Fishman, No. 99-929, 1999 WL 744016, at *1 (E.D. Pa. Sep. 22,
1999), citing Batoffv. State Fann Ins. Co., 977 F.2d 848, 851 (3d Cir. 1992); see also Boyer,
913 F.2d at 111 (holding that the removal statutes "are to be strictly construed against removal
and all doubts should be resolved in favor ofremand"), quoting Steel Valley Auth. v. Union
Switch & Signal Div., 809 F.2d 1006, 1010 (3d Cir. 1987).

DISCUSSION
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)
[D]istrict courts ... have original jurisdiction of all civil actions
where the 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; (3) citizens of different States and in
which citizens of a foreign state are additional parties; and (4) a
foreign state, defined in§ 1603(a) of this title, as plaintiffs and
citizens of a State or of different States.
28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). The United States Supreme Court has read this Rule to require complete
diversity between all plaintiffs and all defendants. Lincoln Prop. Co. v. Roche, 546 U.S. 81, 89
(2005). In other words, each plaintiff must be able to sue each defendant. Singh v. DaimlerBenz AG, 9 F.3d 303, 305 (3d Cir.1993), citing Strawbridge v. Curtiss, 7 U.S. (3 Cranch) 267, 2
L.Ed. 435 (1806); see also Yellen v. Telledne Cont'l Motors, Inc., 832 F. Supp. 2d 490, 501
(E.D. Pa. 2011) (noting that complete diversity requires that every plaintiff be of a diverse state
citizenship from every defendant).
Even if diversity jurisdiction exists, however, a removal is procedurally defective if it
violates the "forum defendant rule" of28 U.S.C. § 1441(b). Under the forum defendant rule, a
civil action that is "otherwise removable solely on the basis of [diversity jurisdiction] may not be
removed if any of the parties in interest properly joined and served as defendants is a citizen of

4

the State in which such action is brought." 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b)(2); see also Swindell-Filiaggi v.
CSX Cor.p., 92;2 f. Supp. 2d 514, 517 (E.D. Pa. 2013).
In the present matter, plaintiff concedes that she is a citizen of Illinois, defendant
Skyview Management, LLC is a citizen of New Jersey and defendant Wyndam 1-{otel Group is a
citizen of both Delaware and New Jersey. She argues, however, that, by defendants' own
admission, defendant Vraj Brig is a citizen of Pennsylvania and has been properly joined and
served. Specifically, she cites to two paragraphs in defendants' amended notice ofremoval, as
follows:
6.
Vraj Brig PA, LLC, is a limjted liability company and sole
member entity with its registered aqdress and principal place of
business located [at] 2015 Penrose Avenue, Philadelphia,
Pennsylvapia. At all times material hereto the sole member of
defendant, Vraj Brig PA, LLC was Ravi Sheth, 143 Valesi Drive,
Morganville, New Jersey.
9.
Plaintiff is a citizen of the State of Illinois and Moving
Defendants are citizens of the State~ of New Jersey, Pennsylvania
and Delaware, both at the time of Plaintiffs Praceipe to Issue Writ
of Summons, and continuing to and including the time of the filing
of the Initial Notice of Removal and the within Amended Notice of
Removal.

Am. Notice of Removal, ECF No. 4, ~~ 6, 9. Based on these averments, plaintiff contends that
because Vraj Brig is a citizen of Pennsylvania and because the action was originally filed in the
Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, the forum qefendant rule bars removal.
While defendants' statements in the amended notice of removal unintenti9nally inject
some confusion into the precise citizenship of the defendants, a closer look at the applicable law
reveals that the forum defendant rule does not apply in this case. Vraj Brig PA, LLC is identified
as a limited liability company. "[A] limited liability company, as an unincorporated business
entity, should be treated as a partnership for purposes of establishing citizenship." Zambelli

5

Fireworks Mfg. Co., Inc. v. Wood, 592 F.3d 412, 420 (3d Cir. 2010). The Court of Appeals has
explicitly held that ''the citizenship of an LLC is determined by the citizenship of each of its
members." Id.
Under this rule, the citizenship ofVraj Brig PA, LLC, as a limited liability company, is
determined by the citizenship of its sole member, identified in the amended notice of removal as
Ravi Sheth, a citizen of New Jersey. Am. Notice of Removal, ECF No. 4,, 6. Pursuant to the
well-established rules in this Circuit, Vraj Brig PA, LLC is therefore a citizen of the state of New
Jersey. It has no members in Pennsylvania. Although the amended notice of removal
inexplicably alleges that the defendants "are citizens of the States of New Jersey, Pennsylvania
and Delaware,"2 id., 9, that statement cannot alter the legal fact that defendants are actually only
citizens of New Jersey and Delaware. In turn, the forum defendant rule cannot apply.
In short, complete diversity of citizenship exists between plaintiff and defendants, the
amount in controversy appears to exceed the $75,000 threshold and none of the defendants are
citizens of the forum state. Under this set of facts, diversity jurisdiction exists, removal to
federal court was proper and there is no basis for remand. Accordingly, I will deny plaintiffs
motion to remand.

An appropriate Order follows.

ENTERED
.JUL 11 2017

2

In their reply brief, defendants explain that they "mistakenly stated" that Vraj Brig PA,
LLC is a citizen of Pennsylvania, but that under the law, Vrag Brig PA, LLC is only a citizen of
New Jersey.
6