Opinion
20-CV-1612 TWR (KSC)
08-02-2021
BOBBIE LEONARD, an individual, Plaintiff, v. KFMB-TV, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company; and DOES 1 through 10, Defendants.
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO REMAND
HONORABLE TODD W. ROBINSON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
(ECF No. 32)
Presently before the Court is Plaintiff Bobbie Leonard's Motion to Remand. (“Mot., ” ECF No. 32.) Defendant KFMB-TV, LLC filed an Opposition to (“Opp'n, ” ECF No. 33), and Plaintiff filed a Reply in Support of (“Reply, ” ECF No. 34) the Motion. The Court held a hearing on March 19, 2021, during which the Court ordered Defendant to file additional briefing in support of its Opposition, which Defendant filed on June 2, 2021. (ECF Nos. 41, 42.) Having carefully reviewed the Parties' arguments, the record, and the law, the Court DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiff's Motion.
BACKGROUND
On July 10, 2020, Plaintiff filed a Complaint against Tegna, Inc. (“Tegna”) in the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego. (See generally ECF No. 1-2.) On August 19, 2021, Tegna filed a Notice of Removal with this Court on the basis of diversity of citizenship jurisdiction pursuant to 20 U.S.C. § 1332, alleging that Plaintiff is a citizen of California and Tegna is a citizen of Delaware, its place of incorporation, and Virginia, its principal place of business. (See ECF No. 1.) On November 10, 2020, after Tegna represented to Plaintiff that KFMB-TV, LLC (“Defendant”), not Tegna, was Plaintiff's employer, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint, which removed Tegna, Inc. as the defendant and named Defendant in its stead. (See ECF No. 14 “FAC, ” Mot. at 2.) Plaintiff filed the instant Motion on March 19, 2021. (See generally Mot.) On March 19, 2021, the Court ordered Defendant to submit additional briefing in support of its Opposition to the instant Motion. (ECF No. 41.) On June 2, 2021, Defendant filed its additional briefing. (ECF No. 42.) On June 11, 2021, the Court ordered that Plaintiff could file additional briefing in response to Defendant's June 2 submission. (ECF No. 44.) To date, Plaintiff has not filed any additional briefing. (See generally Docket.)
LEGAL STANDARD
Pursuant to Title 28 of the United States Code, section 1332(a)(1), a federal district court has jurisdiction over “all actions 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. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1). The Supreme Court has interpreted § 1332 to require “complete diversity of citizenship, ” meaning each plaintiff must be diverse from each defendant. Caterpillar Inc. v. Lewis, 519 U.S. 61, 67-68 (1996). A corporation is a citizen of both the state of incorporation and its principal place of business, i.e., its “nerve center.” Harris v. Rand, 682 F.3d 846, 850-51 (9th Cir. 2012). In contrast, a limited liability company (“LLC”) is “a citizen of every state of which its owners/members are citizens.” Johnson v. Columbia Props, Anchorage. LP, 437 F.3d 894, 899 (9th Cir. 2006). As the removing party, the defendant bears the burden of establishing that the court has subject matter jurisdiction. Abrego Abrego v. The Dow Chemical Co., 443 F.3d 676, 685 (9th Cir. 2006).
ANALYSIS
Plaintiff argues in its Motion that diversity jurisdiction does not exist because Defendant's primary place of business or “nerve center” is in California, and both Defendant and Plaintiff are citizens of California. (See generally Mot.) That argument misses the point.
It is uncontested that Defendant is an LLC. As such, the traditional principal place of business test, i.e., the “nerve center” test, does not determine the citizenship of Defendant for purposes of determining subject matter jurisdiction. Linthicum v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, No. 1:15-CV-01120-AWI, 2015 WL 4477963, at *2 (E.D. Cal. July 21, 2015) (citing Carolina Cas. Ins. Co. v. Team Equip., Inc., 741 F.3d 1082, 1085 (9th Cir. 2014); Segundo Suenos. LLC v. Jones, 494 Fed.Appx. 732, 735 (9th Cir. 2012); and Johnson, 437 F.3d at 899). Rather, an LLC's citizenship is based on the citizenship of each of its members/owners. See id.
Defendant has now put forth sufficient evidence to establish that its sole member/owner is Tegna. (ECF No. 42 (citing Declaration of Harrison); ECF No. 42-1, Ex. A.) Defendant has further established that Tegna is a citizen of Virginia because Tegna's “nerve center” is in Virginia (see generally Opp'n; ECF No. 42 at 2). Hertz Corp. v. Friend, 559 U.S. 77, 130 (2010) (holding that a corporation is a citizen of both the state where it is incorporated and the state where its “nerve center” (typically its headquarters) is located); 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1). Further, it is not disputed that Tegna is incorporated in Delaware. (See generally Mot., Opp'n, ECF No.1.)
Thus, because Plaintiff is a citizen of California and Defendant has sufficiently established that it is a citizen of Virginia and Delaware, the Court finds that Defendant has satisfied its burden of showing complete diversity pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1). Johnson, 437 F.3d at 899-900.
CONCLUSION
In light of the foregoing, the Court DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiffs Motion to Remand (ECF No. 32).