Mami v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 ----oo0oo---- 11 12 AHMED MAMI, an individual, No. 2:23-cv-01549 WBS KJN 13 Plaintiff, 14 v. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO REMAND1 15 MERCEDES-BENZ USA, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability 16 Company; ENVISION MOTORS HOLDINGS, LLC, a Delaware 17 Limited Liability Company d/b/a MERCEDES-BENZ OF STOCKTON; and 18 DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, 19 Defendants. 20 21 ----oo0oo---- 22 Plaintiff Ahmed Mami initiated this action in the 23 Sacramento County Superior Court against defendants Mercedes-Benz 24 USA, LLC, and Envision Motors Holdings, LLC d/b/a Mercedes-Benz 25 of Stockton, under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act. (See 26 FAC (Docket No. 1-7).) Defendant Mercedes-Benz removed the 27 1 The motion is decided on the papers without oral 28 argument pursuant to Local Rule 230(g). 1 action to this court on the basis of diversity of citizenship. 2 (Docket No. 1.) Plaintiff now moves to remand. (Docket No. 8.) 3 “Under 28 U.S.C. § 1441, a defendant may remove an 4 action filed in state court to federal court if the federal court 5 would have original subject matter jurisdiction over the action.” 6 Moore-Thomas v. Ala. Airlines, Inc., 553 F.3d 1241, 1243 (9th 7 Cir. 2009). “Federal jurisdiction must be rejected if there is 8 any doubt as to the right of removal in the first instance.” 9 Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992). 10 Federal courts have original jurisdiction over cases 11 where complete diversity exists between the parties and the 12 amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). 13 Complete diversity means that “each plaintiff must be of a 14 different citizenship from each defendant.” Grancare, LLC v. 15 Thrower, 889 F.3d 543, 548 (9th Cir. 2018). 16 Defendants have failed to establish complete diversity, 17 as neither the Notice of Removal (Docket No. 1) nor the 18 Opposition to plaintiff’s motion (Docket No. 13) address the 19 citizenship of defendant Envision Motors Holdings, LLC.2 See 20 Gaus, 980 F.2d at 566 (“the defendant always has the burden of 21 22 2 “For purposes of diversity jurisdiction, a limited liability company is a citizen of every state of which its 23 owners/members are citizens.” 3123 SMB LLC v. Horn, 880 F.3d 461, 462–63 (9th Cir. 2018). Though defendant has not identified 24 the members of Envision Motors Holdings, LLC, the court notes that it is highly likely that at least one member of the company 25 –- which operates in California –- is a citizen of California, which would defeat complete diversity. Moreover, even if none of 26 them are citizens of California, it was incumbent upon defendant 27 to show that. It has not. The court also notes that defendant does not argue fraudulent joinder of Envision Motors Holdings, 28 LLC. eee mR OIE IE IRE IRI OE OE OS IE OD EE 1 establishing that removal is proper”); Acad. of Country Music v. 2 Cont’l Cas. Co., 991 F.3d 1059, 1068 (9th Cir. 2021) (a notice of 3 removal must contain “plausible allegations of the jurisdictional 4 elements”). The court must therefore remand the case to state 5S | court. See Grancare, 889 F.3d at 548; Gaus, 980 F.2d at 566. 6 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion to 7 remand (Docket No. 8) be, and the same hereby is, GRANTED. This 8 case is hereby REMANDED to the Superior Court of the State of 9 California, in and for the County of Sacramento. 10 | Dated: October 6, 2023 dtd ak. fAd.ke 11 WILLIAM B. SHUBB UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28