1031 Equity Exchange, LLC et al vs Superior Homes, LLC et al

Filing 21

ORDER granting 12 Motion to Dismiss signed by Judge Benjamin H. Settle.(TG)

1
2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT TACOMA

3
4
5
6
7

1031 EQUITY EXCHANGE, LLC, et
al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.

CASE NO. C17-5213 BHS
ORDER DISMISSING
COMPLAINT FOR LACK OF
JURISDICTION

SUPERIOR HOMES, LLC, et al.,

8

Defendants.

9
10

This matter comes before the Court on Defendants Superior Homes, LLC

11

(“Superior”) and Estela Mata’s (“Defendants”) motion to dismiss (Dkt. 12) and the

12

Court’s order to show cause (Dkt. 19). The Court has considered the pleadings filed in

13

support of and in opposition to the motion, Defendants’ response to the order to show

14

cause, and the remainder of the file and hereby dismisses the complaint for lack of

15

jurisdiction.
I.

16

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

17

On March 22, 2017, Plaintiffs 1031 Equity Exchange, LLC (“1031EE”) and Kauai

18

Ocean View Professional Building, LLC (“Kauai Ocean”) (collectively “Plaintiffs”) filed

19

a complaint against Defendants asserting diversity jurisdiction and numerous causes of

20

action based on violations of state law. Dkt. 1.

21
22

On May 1, 2017, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss arguing that the Court
should (1) abstain because of a prior action in Hawaii, (2) dismiss because neither

ORDER - 1

1

plaintiff is a real party in interest, or (3) dismiss because joinder of the real party in

2

interest would defeat jurisdiction. Dkt. 12. On May 22, 2017, Plaintiffs responded. Dkt.

3

15. On May 23, 2017, Defendants replied and argued for the first time that there is not

4

complete diversity. Dkt. 18.

5

On June 13, 2017, the Court issued an order to show cause regarding an apparent

6

lack of diversity between the parties. Dkt. 19. On June 16, 2016, Defendants responded

7

and agreed with the Court. Dkt. 20. Plaintiffs failed to respond.

8
9

II.

DISCUSSION

“If the court determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the

10

court must dismiss the action.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3) (emphasis added). See also Snell

11

v. Cleveland, Inc., 316 F.3d 822, 826 (9th Cir. 2002) (“Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

12

12(h)(3) provides that a court may raise the question of subject matter jurisdiction, sua

13

sponte, at any time during the pendency of the action . . . .”). Although Defendants

14

improperly raised the issue of diversity jurisdiction for the first time in the reply, the

15

Court must confirm it has jurisdiction before reaching the merits of the dispute. See

16

Morongo Band of Mission Indians v. Cal. State Bd. of Equalization, 858 F.2d 1376, 1380

17

(9th Cir. 1988). As the parties invoking federal jurisdiction, Plaintiffs bear the burden of

18

establishing its existence. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994).

19

District courts have diversity jurisdiction when the parties are citizens of different

20

states and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs. 28

21

U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1). “Diversity jurisdiction requires complete diversity between the

22

parties—each defendant must be a citizen of a different state from each plaintiff.” In re

ORDER - 2

1

Digimarc Corp. Derivative Litig., 549 F.3d 1223, 1234 (9th Cir. 2008). “In cases where

2

entities rather than individuals are litigants, diversity jurisdiction depends on the form of

3

the entity.” Johnson v. Columbia Props. Anchorage, LP, 437 F.3d 894, 899 (9th Cir.

4

2006). “[A]n LLC is a citizen of every state of which its owners/members are citizens.”

5

Id. Thus, if an individual defendant is an owner or member of a plaintiff LLC, “then

6

diversity requirement of section 1332 cannot be satisfied.” Skaaning v. Sorensen, CV 09-

7

00364 DAE-KSC, 2009 WL 3763056, at *3 (D. Haw. Nov. 10, 2009)

8

In this case, Plaintiffs have failed to show complete diversity between the parties.

9

Defendants assert, and Plaintiffs fail to show otherwise, that a member of 1031EE, Frank

10

Sarabia, is a citizen of California, which would result in 1031EE being a citizen of

11

California. Johnson, 437 F.3d at 899. Plaintiffs allege that Superior is a California

12

company. Dkt. 1, ¶¶ 2.3–2.4. Thus, a plaintiff and a defendant are both citizens of the

13

state of California, and the parties lack complete diversity of citizenship.

14

III.

15
16
17

ORDER

Therefore, it is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ complaint is DISMISSED
without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction.
Dated this 19th day of June, 2017.

A

18
19

BENJAMIN H. SETTLE
United States District Judge

20
21
22

ORDER - 3