Opinion
SACV 21-01901-CJC (JDEx)
02-07-2023
JOSE L. ACEVEZ, et al., Plaintiffs, v. COACH ROYAL-003-LP; KINGSLEY MANAGEMENT CORP.; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants.
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THIS ACTION SHOULD NOT BE REMANDED FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION
CORMAC J. CARNEY UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Over one hundred current and former residents of Coach Royal Mobile Home Park (the “Park”) (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) bring this action against the Park's owner and manager, Defendants Coach Royal-003-LP and Kingsley Management Corp. (collectively, “Defendants”). (See Dkt. 4 [Complaint, hereafter “Compl.”].) Plaintiffs originally brought this action in the Superior Court of California, County of Orange, but Defendants subsequently removed to this Court, asserting diversity jurisdiction. (See Dkt. 1 [Notice of Removal].)
In their notice of removal, Defendants allege that Coach Royal-003-LP was and is “a Utah limited liability corporation with its principal place of business in Provo, Utah.” (Notice ¶ 7.) Presumably, Defendants meant limited liability company (“LLC”). These allegations on the state of organization and principal place of business are inadequate, however, because “an 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). Defendants' “notice of removal fails to state the citizenship of the . . . members of [the LLC defendant], and thus, [they] have failed to satisfy their burden to show complete diversity between the parties.” Lindley Contours, LLC v. AABB Fitness Holdings, Inc., 414 Fed.Appx. 62, 64 (9th Cir. 2011); see also United Fin. Cas. Co. v. Bratcher, No. 22-cv-03624, 2022 WL 16836972, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 9, 2022) (“Plaintiff fails, however, to identify the owners and/or members of [the LLC defendant], let alone the states of which each owner and/or member is a citizen. In the absence of such allegations, the complaint is deficient.”); Miller v. BMW of N. Am., No. 18-cv-02498, 2018 WL 6243019, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 28, 2018) (“[T]o properly plead diversity, a limited liability company must affirmatively allege the citizenship of each of its members. A failure to do so can result in dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.” (citation omitted)).
The party's name in fact suggests it is a limited partnership (“LP”), not a LLC. (See id.); see also Utah Business Search, Utah.gov, https://secure.utah.gov/bes/index.html (last visited Feb. 7, 2023) (enter “Coach Royal 003” in the “Business Name” field; click “Search”; then select “COACH ROYAL - 003, L.P.”) (noting that the entity is an LP). In any event, since an LP is a citizen of every state of which each partner-general or limited-is a citizen, see Carden v. Arkoma Assocs., 494 U.S. 185, 195-96 (1990), the analysis would be the same regardless of whether Coach Royal-003-LP were a LP or LLC.
Accordingly, Defendants are hereby ORDERED to show cause why this matter should not be remanded for lack of subject matter jurisdiction by February 21, 2023. Defendants shall file a written response to this Order and shall file an appropriate motion for leave to amend the notice of removal to correct the deficiency consistent with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules. Plaintiffs are not obligated to file a written response to this Order, but should they wish to do so, Plaintiffs are ORDERED to file their response by February 28, 2023.
Further, since it is appropriate to resolve the jurisdictional issues first, the hearing dates on Defendants' motions for summary judgment, (see Dkt. 52 [Feb. 13, 2023]; Dkt. 54 [Feb. 21, 2023]; Dkt. 56 [Feb. 27, 2023]), are hereby VACATED. The hearing dates will be rescheduled at a later date if it is appropriate