Lacrosse et al v. Pinnacle Workforce Logistics, LLC. et al

Filing 23

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE directing dfts to show cause within 10 days by Judge James L. Robart. (RS) Modified on 2/24/2017/cc Fred Meyer (RS).

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

8
9
10

GREG LACROSSE, et al.,

CASE NO. C16-0904JLR

Plaintiffs,

11

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

v.
12
13

PINNACLE WORKFORCE
LOGISTICS, LLC, et al.,

14

Defendants.

15
I.

INTRODUCTION

16
Based on the February 23, 2017, hearing on Plaintiffs Greg Lacrosse and Lori
17
Lacrosse’s motion to compel, it is unclear whether complete diversity exists between the
18
parties, and the court therefore questions whether it has subject matter jurisdiction over
19
this matter. Accordingly, the court ORDERS Defendants to show cause why the court
20
should not remand this case to Skagit County Superior Court for lack of subject matter
21
jurisdiction.
22

ORDER - 1

1

II.

BACKGROUND & ANALYSIS

2

The Lacrosses initially filed this action in Skagit County Superior Court on

3

October 30, 2015.1 (Not. of Rem. (Dkt. # 1) ¶ 8; Am. Compl. (Dkt. # 1-1).) The lawsuit

4

alleges negligence by Defendants Pinnacle Workforce Logistics, LLC (“Pinnacle LLC”),

5

Roadlink Workforce Solutions, LLC (“Roadlink LLC”), and Capstone Logistics, LLC

6

(“Capstone LLC”) (collectively, “Defendants”) arising out of a workplace injury incurred

7

by Mr. Lacrosse. (See Am. Compl. ¶¶ 4.1-5.11.) During the events in question, Mr.

8

Lacrosse worked as a night time manager at Fred Meyer in Burlington, Washington. (Id.

9

¶ 3.6.) The Lacrosses allege that Mr. Lacrosse incurred severe injuries when an

10

improperly stretch-wrapped pallet tipped onto him during his November 10, 2012, work

11

shift. (Id. ¶¶ 3.8-3.16.) On June 14, 2016, Defendants removed the case on the basis of

12

diversity jurisdiction. (Not. of Rem. ¶¶ 19-22.)

13

In their amended complaint, the Lacrosses allege that Capstone LLC is the current

14

name of Pinnacle LLC (Am. Compl. ¶ 1.5), which used to be known as Roadlink LLC

15

(id. ¶ 1.3).2 At the time of Mr. Lacrosse’s injury, Roadlink LLC allegedly provided

16

services to Fred Meyer such as preparing, loading, and stretch wrapping products and

17

freight on pallets. (See id. ¶¶ 3.4-3.5.) At the February 23, 2017, hearing, however, two

18
19
20
21
22

1

The Lacrosses had previously filed a similar action in this court, but the court dismissed
the case without prejudice. See Lacrosse v. Pinnacle Workforce Logistics, LLC, No.
C15-1583JLR, Dkt. # 4 (dismissing the case on November 2, 2015).
2

These allegations regarding the relationship between Defendants appears to be
inaccurate. (See, e.g., Pinnacle CDS (Dkt. # 10); Capstone CDS (Dkt. # 9).) The court discusses
the implications of that apparent inaccuracy below.

ORDER - 2

1

facts became clear: (1) the Lacrosses inaccurately allege the relationship between

2

Defendants, and (2) neither the Lacrosses nor any of Defendants fully and accurately

3

understand the relationship between Defendants.

4

The confusion stems from the complex corporate history of the three entities, the

5

deficient recordkeeping thereof, and internally inconsistent allegations and

6

representations. For instance, the Lacrosses allege that each Defendant is both an “LLC”

7

and “a Delaware corporation.” (See Am. Compl. ¶¶ 1.3 (Pinnacle LLC), 1.4 (Roadlink

8

LLC), 1.5 (Capstone LLC).) A limited liability company (“LLC”) is a distinct form of

9

corporate entity than a corporation. See Johnson v. Columbia Props. Anchorage, LP, 437

10

F.3d 894, 899 (9th Cir. 2006). This distinction is particularly important in diversity

11

cases. For the purposes of diversity jurisdiction, “an LLC is a citizen of every state of

12

which its owners/members are citizens.” Id. at 896-99. In contrast, a corporation is a

13

citizen of the state in which its principal place of business is located and the state in

14

which it is incorporated. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1).

15

In their corporate disclosure statements, Pinnacle LLC and Capstone LLC assert

16

that Pinnacle LLC is a wholly owned subsidiary of non-party RWS Holdings, LLC,

17

which is a wholly owned subsidiary of Capstone LLC, which is a wholly owned

18

subsidiary of non-party Capstone Logistics Acquisition, Inc. (Pinnacle CDS ¶ 1;

19

Capstone CDS ¶ 1.) Because each LLC in this hierarchy has only one “owner/member,”

20

Johnson, 437 F.3d at 899, this hierarchy renders Pinnacle LLC’s domicile identical to

21

RWS Holdings, LLC’s domicile, which in turn is identical to Capstone LLC’s domicile,

22

which in turn is identical to Capstone Logistics Acquisition, Inc.’s domicile. However,

ORDER - 3

1

there is no evidence in the record of Capstone Logistics Acquisition, Inc.’s principal

2

place of business or place of incorporation. (See Dkt.); 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1).

3

Furthermore, at the hearing, Defendants—including Roadlink LLC itself—expressed

4

ambivalence regarding how Roadlink LLC fits into the chronology and structure

5

explained above. Indeed, counsel for Roadlink LLC confessed that he is unsure whether

6

and to what extent his client exists, and if it does not, what became of it. The court

7

therefore cannot conclude from the current record the domicile of Pinnacle LLC,

8

Roadlink LLC, or Capstone LLC. See Johnson, 437 F.3d at 899.

9

The Lacrosses allege that they are Washington domiciliaries (Am. Compl. ¶ 1),

10

and no subsequent development has called this allegation into question. However, the

11

parties’ unclear and inconsistent positions call into question the domicile of the respective

12

Defendants. “Section 1332 requires complete diversity of citizenship; each of the

13

plaintiffs must be a citizen of a different state than each of the defendants.” Morris v.

14

Princess Cruises, Inc., 236 F.3d 1061, 1067 (9th Cir. 2001). In addition, there is a

15

“strong presumption” against removal jurisdiction, meaning “that the defendant always

16

has the burden of establishing that removal is proper” by a preponderance of the

17

evidence. Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992); see also Geographic

18

Expeditions, Inc. v. Estate of Lhotka, 599 F.3d 1102, 1106-07 (9th Cir. 2010) (stating the

19

preponderance standard); Local Rules W.D. Wash. LCR 101(e) (“If the removal is based

20

on diversity, the notice of removal must also, to the extent possible, identify the

21

citizenship of the parties, and, if any of the parties is a limited liability corporation (LLC),

22

a limited liability partnership (LLP), or a partnership, identify the citizenship of the

ORDER - 4

1

owners/partners/members of those entities to establish the court’s jurisdiction.”). Factual

2

questions are generally resolved in favor of remand. See Matheson v. Progressive

3

Specialty Ins. Co., 319 F.3d 1089, 1090 (9th Cir. 2003).

4

Based on the foregoing analysis, the court questions whether it has subject matter

5

jurisdiction to hear this action. According, the court ORDERS Defendants to show cause

6

within 10 days of the entry of this order why the court should not remand this case for

7

lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Defendants may respond jointly or separately, but

8

each Defendant must respond to this order. No response may exceed eight (8) pages.

9

The Lacrosses may respond subject to the same deadline and page limit, but they are not

10

required to do so.

11
12

III.

CONCLUSION

The court ORDERS Defendants to show cause no later than 10 days from the

13

entry of this order why the court should not remand this case for lack of subject matter

14

jurisdiction. If Defendants fail to timely show cause, the court will remand this case to

15

Skagit County Superior Court.

16

Dated this 24th day of February, 2017.

17

A

18
19

JAMES L. ROBART
United States District Judge

20
21
22

ORDER - 5