Palumbo Design, LLC v. 1169 Hillcrest LLC ( 2019 )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL Case No. CV 19-6664-DMG (JPRx) Date August 5, 2019 Title Palumbo Design, LLC v. 1169 Hillcrest LLC, et al. Page 1 of 2 Present: The Honorable DOLLY M. GEE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE KANE TIEN NOT REPORTED Deputy Clerk Court Reporter Attorneys Present for Plaintiff(s) Attorneys Present for Defendant(s) None Present None Present Proceedings: IN CHAMBERS - ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THIS CASE SHOULD NOT BE REMANDED TO LOS ANGELES COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT On June 21, 2019, Plaintiff Palumbo Design, LLC filed a First Amended Complaint in Los Angeles County Superior Court against Defendants 1169 Hillcrest, LLC; NEM 2 LLC; and Neil Moffitt, alleging the following state-law causes of action: (1) breach of contract, and (2) quantum meruit. See Removal Notice, Ex. A at 4–18 (First Am. Compl.) [Doc. # 1-1].1 On August 1, 2019, Defendants NEM 2 LLC and Moffitt (the “Removing Defendants”) removed the action, invoking this Court’s diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. section 1332(a). [Doc. # 1.] Under 28 U.S.C. section 1441(a), an action may be removed from a state court to a federal district court if the latter would have had original jurisdiction over the action had it been filed in that court. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 1332(a)(2), a district court shall have jurisdiction over a civil action between citizens of a state and citizens or subjects of a foreign state in which the amount in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs. “The burden of establishing federal subject matter jurisdiction falls on the party invoking removal.” Marin Gen. Hosp. v. Modesto & Empire Traction Co., 581 F.3d 941, 944 (9th Cir. 2009). As there is a “‘strong presumption’ against removal jurisdiction[,]” an action should be remanded “if there is any doubt as to the right of removal . . . .” See Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992). The Removing Defendants allege that NEM 2 LLC is the sole member of 1169 Hillcrest, LLC; Moffitt is the sole member of NEM 2 LLC; and Moffitt is domiciled in the United Kingdom. See Removal Notice at ¶¶ 4–6 [Doc. # 1]. Therefore, the Removing Defendants have alleged sufficient facts to show that they are citizens of the United Kingdom. See Johnson v. Columbia Props. Anchorage LP, 437 F.3d 894, 899 (9th Cir. 2006) (“[A]n LLC is a citizen of every state of which its owners/members are citizens.”); Kanter v. Warner-Lambert Co., 265 1 All page references herein are to page numbers inserted by the CM/ECF system. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL Case No. CV 19-6664-DMG (JPRx) Date August 5, 2019 Title Palumbo Design, LLC v. 1169 Hillcrest LLC, et al. Page 2 of 2 F.3d 853, 857 (9th Cir. 2001) (“The natural person’s state citizenship is . . . determined by [his or] her state of domicile . . . .”). Nonetheless, the Removing Defendants do not identify the state(s) of citizenship of Plaintiff’s owners and/or members. Instead, the Removing Defendants apparently believe that Plaintiff is a California citizen merely because it is a California limited liability company that has its headquarters in Los Angeles. See Removal Notice at ¶ 3 [Doc. # 1]. Therefore, the Removing Defendants have failed to demonstrate that this Court has diversity jurisdiction over this case. The Removing Defendants are hereby ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE why this action should not be remanded to Los Angeles County Superior Court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Removing Defendants shall file a response by no later than August 12, 2019. Failure to timely file a satisfactory response by this deadline will result in the remand of this action. Plaintiff shall file a reply, if any, by August 19, 2019. Each party’s brief, exclusive of supporting declarations, shall not exceed 10 pages. IT IS SO ORDERED.