Norwood v. HPA Borrower 2018-1 LLC ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 8 AT SEATTLE 9 10 KRISTY M. NORWOOD, et al., CASE NO. C21-5843JLR 11 Plaintiffs, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE v. REGARDING SUBJECT 12 MATTER JURISDICTION HPA BORROWER 2018-1 LLC, et 13 al., 14 Defendants. 15 Before the court are Plaintiffs Kristy M. Norwood and Timothy P. Norwood’s 16 (collectively, the “Norwoods”) complaint (Compl. (Dkt. # 1-2)) and Defendants HPA 17 Borrower 2018-1 LLC (“HPA Borrower”) and OPVHHJV LLC’s (“OPVHHJV”) 18 (collectively, “Defendants”) notice of removal (Notice (Dkt. # 1)). Having reviewed the 19 complaint and the notice of removal, the court finds that Defendants have failed to allege 20 an adequate basis for subject matter jurisdiction. The court therefore orders Defendants, 21 // 22 1 within seven (7) days of the date of this order, to serve and file a submission that includes 2 information sufficient to establish the court’s jurisdiction. 3 Defendants assert that the court’s jurisdiction is based on diversity of citizenship. 4 (Notice at 2.) For purposes of assessing diversity jurisdiction, the court must consider the 5 domicile of all members of a limited liability company. Johnson v. Columbia Props. 6 Anchorage, LP, 437 F.3d 894, 899 (9th Cir. 2006); see also Local Rules W.D. Wash. 7 LCR 8(a) (“If plaintiff is asserting that this court has jurisdiction based on diversity, the 8 compliant must identify the citizenship of the parties, and, if any of the parties is a limited 9 liability corporation (LLC) . . . identify the citizenship of the . . . members of those 10 entities to establish the court’s jurisdiction.”). Defendants allege that the Norwoods “are 11 residents of Washington and are Washington citizens for purposes of diversity 12 jurisdiction,” that HPA Borrower is “a Delaware limited liability company” with its 13 principal place of business in Chicago, Illinois, and that OPVHHJV is a “Texas limited 14 liability company” with its principal place of business in Plano, Texas. (Notice at 3.) 15 Yet, Defendants fail to allege the citizenship of any of the members of HPA Borrower or 16 OPVHHJV. (See generally id.) Absent such allegations, the court cannot determine if 17 Defendants have properly invoked this court’s subject matter jurisdiction on the basis of 18 the parties’ diversity of citizenship.1 19 20 1 The court notes that if any member of HPA Borrower or OPVHHJV is itself a limited liability company, Defendants must provide information about the citizenship of the members of that limited liability company as well, which is determined in the same manner described 21 above—namely, by establishing the citizenship of each member. See Johnson, 437 F.3d at 899 (examining the citizenship of a limited partnership whose partners included limited liability 22 companies by looking to the citizenship of the members of those limited liability companies). 1 Accordingly, the court ORDERS Defendants to show cause why this case should 2 not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See Martin v. Franklin Capital 3 Corp., 546 U.S. 132, 143 (2005) (“If it appears that the federal court lacks jurisdiction, 4 however, ‘the case shall be remanded.’”) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c)). If Defendants 5 fail to provide the court with the information described above within seven (7) days of 6 the date of this order, the court will remand this case. 7 Dated this 1st day of December, 2021. 8 A 9 10 JAMES L. ROBART United States District Judge 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 This process continues until every layer of limited liability company membership has been 22 reduced to the citizenship of its individual members.