Misango v. Greystar Management Services, LP

Filing 7

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE directing Defendant show cause why this case should not be remanded for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Show Cause Response due within 7 days of this order. Signed by Judge James L. Robart. (PM)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

8
9
10

SIRLEEM MISANGO,
Plaintiff,

11
v.
12
13

CASE NO. C17-1161JLR
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
REGARDING SUBJECT
MATTER JURISDICTION

GREYSTAR MANAGEMENT
SERVICES, LP,

14

Defendant.

15
Before the court is Defendant Greystar Management Services, LP’s (“Greystar”)
16
notice of removal. (Not. of Removal (Dkt. # 1).) The court has examined Greystar’s
17
notice of removal and supporting documentation and finds that Greystar has failed to
18
establish that the court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action.
19
Greystar invokes the court’s diversity jurisdiction. (Not. of Removal at 2-3.) A
20
federal court’s diversity jurisdiction extends to “all civil actions where the matter in
21
controversy exceeds . . . $75,000 . . . and is between . . . citizens of different States.” 28
22

ORDER - 1

1

U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1). “In cases where entities rather than individuals are litigants,

2

diversity jurisdiction depends on the form of the entity.” Johnson v. Columbia Props.

3

Anchorage, LP, 437 F.3d 894, 899 (9th Cir. 2006). Here, Greystar states that it is a

4

limited liability partnership incorporated in Delaware with its principal place of business

5

in South Carolina. (Not. of Removal at 2; Ford Decl. (Dkt. # 1-3) ¶ 3.) Greystar further

6

alleges that its general partner is GREP General Partner, LLC, and its limited partner is

7

Greystar Real Estate Partners, LLC, both of which are limited liability companies

8

incorporated in Delaware with their principal places of business in South Carolina. (Not.

9

of Removal at 2; Ford Decl. ¶¶ 4-5.)

10

Because Greystar is a limited liability partnership, the court must make

11

jurisdictional determinations specific to that type of entity. Johnson, 437 F.3d at 899.

12

“For purposes of diversity jurisdiction, a limited partnership is a citizen of all of the states

13

of which its partners are citizens . . . .” Id. In this instance, however, examining the

14

citizenship of Greystar’s partners does not end the inquiry because both of Greystar’s

15

partners are limited liability companies. When the owners, members, or partners of an

16

entity party are themselves entities, the court must look to the corporate citizenship of the

17

owner, member, or partner entities, which is determined in the same manner described

18

above. See id. (examining corporate citizenship of a limited partnership whose partners

19

included LLCs by looking to the citizenship of the members/owners of those LLCs).

20

“For purposes of diversity jurisdiction, . . . a limited liability corporation is a citizen of all

21

of the states of which its owners/members are citizens.” Id. Thus, to establish subject

22

matter jurisdiction, Greystar must establish that none of the partners of Greystar are

ORDER - 2

1

citizens of Washington—Plaintiff’s home state. (See Compl. (Dkt. # 1-1) ¶ 2.1 (“Plaintiff

2

Sirleem Misango is a resident of King County, Washington.”).) This has not happened

3

here. The court has no information before it establishing or alleging the citizenship of

4

Greystar’s partners. (See generally Not. of Removal.) Further, if any of the members of

5

Greystar’s partners are themselves business entities, Greystar must repeat this process

6

again, using the appropriate test for citizenship of each business entity. Indeed, Greystar

7

must repeat this process for as many times as is necessary to properly establish the

8

court’s subject matter jurisdiction.

9

This court has previously explained this process in great detail to Greystar. In

10

Antoine Reeves v. ERGS IX REO Owner, LLC, et al., No. C14-0969JLR (W.D. Wash.),

11

this court issued not one but three orders to show cause to Greystar regarding the court’s

12

subject matter jurisdiction. See id., Dkt. ## 6, 15, 20. Greystar failed to adequately

13

demonstrate its citizenship to establish the court’s diversity jurisdiction in response to any

14

of those orders. See id., Dkt. ## 11, 18, 21. Instead, in response to the court’s last order

15

to show cause, Greystar stated that it “believe[d] the best course of action [wa]s a remand

16

to state court, rather than having to identify every owner, member, and partner and obtain

17

evidence of the state of citizenship of every owner, member, and partnership in their

18

complicated ownership charts . . . .” Id., Dkt. # 21 at 1.

19

The court will not provide Greystar with three opportunities to establish the

20

court’s subject matter jurisdiction here as it did in the Antoine Reeves matter. To do so

21

would be a grave waste of judicial resources. The court will permit Greystar one

22

opportunity in response to this order to show cause to adequately establish its citizenship

ORDER - 3

1

so that the court can be assured of its own subject matter jurisdiction. The court further

2

cautions Greystar that it will not indulge Greystar’s continued efforts to invoke this

3

court’s diversity jurisdiction unless it is willing to adequately establish its citizenship

4

despite its “complicated ownership charts.” See Antoine Reeves, No. C14-0969JLR

5

(W.D. Wash.), Dkt. # 21 at 1. The court cautions Greystar that if it continues to file or

6

remove cases in this district by invoking the court’s diversity jurisdiction without being

7

willing to adequately establish a basis for the court’s exercise of that jurisdiction,

8

Greystar may be subject to sanctions.

9

Accordingly, the court orders Greystar to show cause why this case should not be

10

remanded for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. If Greystar fails to provide the court

11

with the information described above within seven (7) days of the date of this order, this

12

case will be remanded to King County Superior Court.

13

Dated this 16th day of August, 2017.

14
15

A

16

JAMES L. ROBART
United States District Judge

17
18
19
20
21
22

ORDER - 4