The City of Elko v. Ville 837 LLC ( 2024 )

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 * * * 4 THE CITY OF ELKO, Case No. 3:24-CV-00214-CLB 5 Plaintiff, ORDER REGARDING MOTIONS TO REMAND, DISMISS, AND AMEND 6 v. [ECF Nos. 13, 15, 17] 7 VILLE 837, LLC, 8 Defendant. 9 This case involves an action filed by Plaintiff City of Elko (“Elko”) which has been 10 removed from the Fourth Judicial District Court of Nevada to the Federal District Court for 11 the District of Nevada by Defendant Ville 837, LLC (“Ville 837”). (ECF No. 1.) Currently 12 pending before the Court are Elko’s motion to remand to state court, (ECF No. 13), Elko’s 13 motion to dismiss Ville 837’s counterclaims, (ECF No. 15), and Ville 837’s motion to 14 amend the petition for removal.1 (ECF No. 17.) The Court will first address Elko’s motion 15 to remand and Ville 837’s motion to amend the petition for removal as the two motions 16 are related. 17 On June 7, 2024, Elko filed a motion to remand this case back to the Fourth Judicial 18 District of Nevada based on alleged defects in Ville 837’s petition for removal, (ECF No. 19 1). (ECF No. 13.) Elko argues that Ville 837 neglected to provide information about the 20 citizenship of the members of the limited liability company. (Id. at 2, 5-7.) Elko further 21 argues that federal question jurisdiction is unavailable because the federal question is not 22 presented on the face of the plaintiff’s complaint, without taking into consideration any 23 counterclaims, and thus Ville 837 must show diversity jurisdiction applies. (Id. at 2, 7-9.) 24 On June 19, 2024, Ville 837 filed a motion to amend the petition for removal to 25 include information which would cure the defects raised by Elko. (ECF No. 17.) Ville 837 26 contemporaneously filed an opposition to the motion for remand, arguing that Ville 837 27 1 Ville 837 also filed a motion to stay the case, (ECF No. 22). However, the Court 1 had an opportunity to provide information to show jurisdiction is proper by establishing 2 that the sole member of the LLC is a resident of Utah.2 (ECF No. 16.) An LLC is a citizen 3 of every state of which its owners/members are citizens. Johnson v. Columbia Props. 4 Anchorage, LP, 437 F.3d 894, 899 (9th Cir. 2006). An individual’s citizenship is 5 determined by her state of domicile, not her state of residence. Kanter v. Warner-Lambert 6 Co., 265 F.3d 845, 857 (9th Cir. 2001). “A person's domicile is her permanent home, 7 where she resides with the intention to remain or to which she intends to return.” Id. (citing 8 Lew v. Moss, 797 F.2d 747, 749 (9th Cir.1986)). Subsequently, Ville 837 filed an affidavit 9 clarifying that the sole member of the LLC is a citizen of and domiciled in Utah. (ECF No. 10 27 (stating “Utah is my permanent home, both previously, currently, and for the 11 foreseeable future” and including a copy of his Utah driver’s license).) 12 Here, the statute states that “[d]efective allegations of jurisdiction may be 13 amended, upon terms, in the trial or appellate courts.” 28 U.S.C. § 1653 (“.”); see Fidelity 14 & Cas. Co. v. Reserve Ins. Co., 596 F.2d 914, 918 (9th Cir. 1979) (granting leave to 15 amend complaint to allege diversity jurisdiction). Thus, the Court grants Ville 837’s motion 16 to amend the petition for removal, (ECF No. 17), to include proper citizenship information. 17 Consequently, the defects in the petition for removal are cured and Elko’s motion for 18 remand, (ECF No. 13), is denied. 19 Finally, as to Elko’s motion to dismiss Ville 837’s counterclaims, (ECF No. 15), the 20 Court denies the motion as moot based on Ville 837’s notice of voluntary dismissal of its 21 counterclaims. (ECF No. 20.) 22 /// 23 /// 24 2 As to Ville 837’s contention that Elko’s motion to remand is deficient for failure to 25 include a signature, (ECF No. 18 at 5), the Court’s local rules provide that “[t]he filing of 26 a document through the use of an authorized filer’s login and password constitutes the “signature” of that attorney or party for purposes of Fed. R. Civ. P. 11.” LR IC 2-1. 27 Additionally, “[a]n electronic signature may be either in the form of ‘/s/ [name]’ or a facsimile of a handwritten signature.” LR IC 5-1(a). The parties are reminded to be familiar 1 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Elko’s motion to remand, (ECF No. 13), be 2| DENIED. 3 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Ville 837’s motion to amend, (ECF No. 17), be GRANTED. 5 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Elko’s motion to dismiss, (ECF No. 15), is 6 | DENIED as moot. 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. . 8 DATED: July 10, 2024 _ . 9 UNITED STATES, MAGISTRATE JUDGE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28