Opinion
CV 22-06034-MWF (AFM)
11-04-2022
G and L 436 Bedford, LLC v. Christopher Vonschlobohm et al.
PROCEEDINGS (IN CHAMBERS): ORDER RE: MOTION TO REMAND [10]
Present: The Honorable MICHAEL W. FITZGERALD, U.S. District Judge
CIVIL MINUTES-GENERAL
HONORABLE MICHAEL W. FITZGERALD, U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
Before the Court is Plaintiff G and L 436 Bedford, LLC (“G&L's”) Motion to Remand (the “Motion”), filed on September 23, 2022. (Docket No. 10). Defendant Christopher Vonschlobohm filed an Opposition on October 17, 2022. (Docket No. 12). Defendant Winchrist Prime LLC joined the Opposition on October 22, 2022. (Docket No. 13). No Reply was filed.
The Motion was noticed to be heard on October 31, 2022. The Court read and considered the papers on the Motion and deemed the matter appropriate for decision without oral argument. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 78(b); Local Rule 7-15. The hearing was therefore VACATED and removed from the Court's calendar.
For the reasons stated below, the Motion is GRANTED. There is not complete diversity between the parties so the Court does not have jurisdiction.
I. BACKGROUND
Plaintiff initiated this action in Los Angeles County Superior Court on May 11, 2022. (See Notice of Removal (“NoR”) at 8 (Docket No. 1)). Defendant removed the action to federal court based on diversity jurisdiction on May 16, 2022. (See id. at 4).
Plaintiff alleged causes of action for Open Book Account, Account Stated, and Reasonable Value, based on a landlord-tenant dispute. (See id. at 10-12).
Plaintiff is a Delaware limited liability company. (Id. at 9). The sole member of Plaintiff is HCN G&L DownREIT II, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company. (Motion at 4; Declaration of Ryan Rothacker (“Rothacker Decl.”), Ex. 2). One of four members of HCN G&L DownREIT II, LLC is Milner Investment Corporation, a California Corporation. (Motion at 4; Rothacker Decl., Ex.3; Second Declaration of Ryan Rothacker (Docket No. 11), Ex. 5).
Defendants Christopher Vonshlobohm, Susan Evans, M.D., and Winston Spell are citizens of the State of California. (NoR at 3).
II. LEGAL STANDARD
“On a plaintiff's motion to remand, it is a defendant's burden to establish jurisdiction by a preponderance of the evidence.” Taylor v. United Road Services, CV 18-00330-LJO (JLTx), 2018 WL 2412326, at *2 (E.D. Cal. May 29, 2018) (citing Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co. v. Owens, 547 U.S. 81, 86-87 (2014); Rodriguez v. AT&T Mobility Servs., LLC, 728 F.3d 975, 978 (9th Cir. 2013)). The non-moving party bears the burden of identifying “a legitimate source of the court's jurisdiction” and “[d]isputed questions of fact and ambiguities in the controlling law must be resolved in favor of the remanding party.” Pac. Mar. Ass'n v. Mead, 246 F.Supp.2d 1087, 1089 (N.D. Cal. 2003) (citing Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992)). Removability is determined based on the removal notice and the complaint as it existed at the time of removal. See Miller v. Grgurich, 763 F.2d 372, 373 (9th Cir. 1985).
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a), a civil action may be removed to the district court where the action is pending if the district court has original jurisdiction over the action. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, a district court has original jurisdiction of a civil action where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and the dispute is between “citizens of different states.”
III. DISCUSSION
A. Removal
Plaintiff moves to remand on the basis that the Court lacks diversity jurisdiction because there is not complete diversity between the parties, as Plaintiff and three Defendants are citizens of California. (See Motion at 3).
It is plain that a “lack of complete diversity deprives the Court of subject matter jurisdiction.” Shaw v. Nike Retail Servs., Inc., No. CV 21-4322-SB (MRWx), 2021 WL 2920612, at *2 (C.D. Cal. July 9, 2021) (citing Moises v. Par Pac. Holdings, Inc., No. CV 20-533 JAO-RT, 2021 WL 600951, at *1 n.2 (D. Haw. Feb. 16, 2021)).
For the purposes of diversity, the citizenship of an LLC is the citizenship of its members. See Johnson v. Columbia Props. Anchorage, LP, 437 F.3d 894, 899 (9th Cir. 2006) (“[L]ike a partnership, an LLC is a citizen of every state of which its owners/members are citizens.”). If any member of an LLC is itself a partnership or association (or another LLC), the federal court must know the citizenship of each "submember" as well. V & M Star, LP v. Centimark Corp., 596 F.3d 354, 356 (6th Cir. 2010).
Here, G&L's filing with the Secretary of State shows that HCN G&L DownREIT II, LLC is G&L's managing member. (Rothacker Decl., Ex.1). The Limited Liability Company Agreement of HCN DownREIT II, LLC shows that Milner Investment Corporation is a member of HCN DownREIT, II, LLC. (Second Rothacker Decl, Ex. 5). Finally, Milner Investment Corporation's filing with the California Secretary of State shows that it is a California corporation. (Rothacker Decl., Ex. 3). Accordingly, G&L has California citizenship for the purposes of diversity.
Because the non-diverse nature of the parties is clear, the Court lacks jurisdiction.
Accordingly, the Motion is GRANTED and this action is REMANDED. The Clerk of Court is ORDERED to return this action to the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles.
IT IS SO ORDERED.