Gateway Network Connections, LLC. v. Matulich

• Court: District Court, D. Guam
• Decided: September 29, 2023
• Docket: 1:22-cv-00024
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

4 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF GUAM

5 GATEWAY NETWORK CONNECTIONS, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-00024 6 a Guam limited liability company and ASIA CONNECTIVITY ELEMENTS, INC., a Guam 7 corporation, DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING

MOTION TO DISMISS FIRST AMENDED 8 Plaintiffs, COMPLAINT FOR LACK OF SUBJECT 9 v. MATTER JURISDICTION

10 RUSSELL MATULICH,

11 Defendant. 12 Presently before the Court is Defendant Russel Matulich’s motion to dismiss (“Mot. Dismiss,” ECF 13 No. 31) the first amended complaint (“FAC,” ECF No. 29) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The 14 matter was fully briefed,1 and the Court took the matter under submission after oral arguments. (Mins., 15 16 ECF No. 44.) Having reviewed the briefs, heard the arguments of counsel, and considered the applicable 17 law and the facts of this case, the Court GRANTS Matulich’s motion to dismiss and DISMISSES the 18 action. Because the Court lacks jurisdiction, it cannot, and does not, make any findings as to the propriety 19 of Plaintiffs’, Gateway Network Connections, LLC (“GNC”) and Asia Connectivity Elements, Inc. 20 (“ACE”), motion to enjoin arbitration (“Mot. Enjoin Arbitration,” ECF No. 33). 21 I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY 22 23 Previously, the Court granted Matulich’s motion to dismiss the complaint (ECF No. 18) for 24 Plaintiffs’ failure to adequately plead diversity jurisdiction but granted Plaintiffs leave to amend their 25 complaint. (Order Granting Mot. Dismiss 4, ECF No. 27.) 26

27 1 The motion was supported by a declaration of Chase Tajima with exhibits (ECF No. 31-1). Plaintiffs filed their opposition to the motion to dismiss (ECF No. 37), which was also supported by declarations 28 and exhibits (ECF Nos. 37-1 – 37-4) to which Matulich filed his reply (ECF No. 42) supported by a 1 Plaintiffs filed the FAC, which was verified by Brett Lay, the Chief Executive Officer (“CEO”) of 2 GNC and ACE, supported with exhibits. (FAC 15.)2 The FAC is premised upon diversity jurisdiction. (Id. 3 ¶ 8.) 4 The following facts taken from the FAC are as follows. Plaintiff GNC is a limited liability company 5 (“LLC”) comprised of two members: Plaintiff ACE and Teleguam Holdings, LLC dba GTA (“GTA”). 6 (FAC ¶¶ 3-4.) ACE is a corporation incorporated in Guam with investment in GNC as its principal business 7 8 activity and is thus a holding company. (Id. ¶ 5.) ACE’s directors “are located in various locations in the 9 United States, and for at least the last year, their board meetings have been noticed for Westport, 10 Connecticut (with directors generally attending remotely).” (Id.) As a LLC, GTA’s sole member is 11 Teleguam Holdings, Inc., which is a corporation incorporated in Delaware and headquartered in Guam. 12 (Id. ¶ 6.) Teleguam Holdings, Inc. “is a holding company” with its management team and directors located 13 in Guam, where the board meetings are regularly noticed. (Id.) Defendant Matulich is a citizen of California 14 15 and resides in Napa, California. (Id. ¶ 7.) 16 On January 3, 2021, ACE and GNC boards attempted to remove Matulich as CEO and director of 17 both companies. (FAC ¶ 13.) On May 17, 2022, the Hawaii Arbitration Panel determined that the removals 18 were ineffective as they failed to comply with certain procedural requirements. (See id. at 6-7, 27-28.) 19 From May 23, 2022, through July 18, 2022, GNC and ACE members and directors undertook several 20 actions to remove Matulich as CEO and director of both companies. (Id. ¶¶ 18-22, 26-28.) 21 II. LEGAL STANDARD 22 23 A. Subject Matter Jurisdiction 24 Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction empowered to hear only those cases authorized by 25 the Constitution or by Congress. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). A 26 27

2 The Court references the page numbers located in the footer of the document and generated by the CM/ECF filing 28 1 court must dismiss a case if it determines that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). 2 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(1) requires a complaint to contain “a short and plain statement of 3 the grounds for the court’s jurisdiction, unless the court already has jurisdiction and the claim needs no new 4 jurisdictional support[.]” Although the party invoking “diversity jurisdiction always bears the burden of both 5 pleading and proving diversity jurisdiction[,] . . . allegations of jurisdictional fact need not be proven unless 6 challenged” at the pleading stage. NewGen, Ltd. Liab. Co. v. Safe Cig, Ltd. Liab. Co., 840 F.3d 606, 613-14 7 (9th Cir. 2016) (first citing FW/PBS, Inc. v. City of Dallas, 493 U.S. 215, 231 (1990); then citing 8 DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Cuno, 547 U.S. 332, 342 n.3 (2006); and then citing Kanter v. Warner-Lambert Co., 9 10 265 F.3d 853, 857 (9th Cir. 2001)). In addition to pleading the citizenship of parties, a complaint should allege 11 facts to substantiate such claims. See Harris v. Rand, 682 F.3d 846, 850-51 (9th Cir. 2012). For example, a 12 complaint should assert “facts regarding the location of a [corporation’s] principal place of business” and 13 “[t]hose factual allegations are entitled to a presumption of truth under” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 14 U.S. 544 (2007) and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009). Harris, 682 F.3d at 850-51. 15 Federal courts have diversity jurisdiction over “all civil actions where the matter in controversy exceeds 16 the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and is between-- (1) citizens of different States; 17 (2) citizens of a State and citizens or subjects of a foreign state . . . ; (3) citizens of different States and in which 18 citizens or subjects of a foreign state are additional parties[.]” 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). “The party seeking to invoke 19 the district court’s diversity jurisdiction always bears the burden of both pleading and proving diversity 20 21 jurisdiction.” Rainero v. Archon Corp., 844 F.3d 832, 840 (9th Cir. 2016) (quoting NewGen, LLC, 840 F.3d at 22 613-14). “In cases where entities rather than individuals are litigants, diversity jurisdiction depends on the form 23 of the entity.” Johnson v. Columbia Props. Anchorage, LP, 437 F.3d 894, 899 (9th Cir. 2006). For example, a 24 corporation is a citizen of the state of incorporation and the state where its principal place of business is located. 25 Id. In contrast, LLCs are “citizens of every state of which its owners/members are citizens.” Id. “[W]here an 26 LLC is a member of another LLC, the citizenship of the ‘sub-member’ LLC is likewise defined by the 27 citizenships of its own members.” 19th Cap. Grp., Inc. v. 3 GGG’s Truck Lines, Inc., No. CV 18-2493 PA 28 1 (RAOx), 2018 WL 6219886, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 3, 2018) (citations omitted). For individuals, citizenship in 2 a state requires United States citizenship and is determined by domicile. Kanter v. Warner-Lambert Co., 265 3 F.3d 853, 857 (9th Cir. 2001). “A person’s domicile is her permanent home, where she resides with the 4 intention to remain or to which she intends to return.” Id. (citing Lew v. Moss, 797 F.2d 747, 749 (9th Cir. 5 1986)). 6 B. Facial and Factual Attacks on Subject Matter Jurisdiction 7 8 A defendant may move to dismiss a claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1) 9 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 12(b)(1) motions are either facial or factual. Safe Air for 10 Everyone v. Meyer, 373 F.3d 1035, 1039 (9th Cir. 2004). A facial attack does not challenge the veracity of 11 the plaintiff’s allegations, but instead asserts that they “are insufficient on their face to invoke federal 12 jurisdiction.” Id. Conversely, a defendant bringing a factual attack disputes the truthfulness of the 13 allegations underlying federal jurisdiction. Id. 14 When considering a facial challenge to subject matter jurisdiction, all factual allegations in the 15 16 complaint “are taken as true and all reasonable inferences are drawn in [the plaintiff’s] favor.” Pride v. 17 Correa, 719 F.3d 1130, 1133 (9th Cir. 2013) (citations omitted). In contrast for factual challenges, “[t]he 18 court need not presume the truthfulness of the plaintiff’s allegations.” Safe Air, 373 F.3d at 1039. Courts 19 may review evidence beyond the complaint without converting the motion to dismiss into a motion for 20 summary judgment. Id. Once the moving party has presented affidavits or other evidence for its factual 21 motion, “the party opposing the motion must furnish affidavits or other evidence necessary to satisfy its 22 burden of establishing subject matter jurisdiction.” Id. (citation omitted). 23 24 III. DISCUSSION 25 In his motion to dismiss, Matulich raises several arguments asserting that the Court lacks subject 26 matter jurisdiction over the FAC. First, he asserts a facial attack that the FAC inadequately alleges 27 Plaintiffs’ citizenships. (Mot. Dismiss 9.) Second, he raises a factual attack and asserts that ACE is 28 1 controlled from California. (Id. at 11.) Third, he contends that the FAC defectively pleads the amount in 2 controversy for diversity jurisdiction. (Id. at 12.) Ultimately, the Court concludes that Plaintiff ACE is 3 controlled from California, not Guam as alleged in the FAC, thus destroying diversity as Matulich is a 4 citizen of California. 5 A. Matulich’s facial attack fails. 6 Matulich levies a facial attack claiming that Plaintiffs fail to “allege what each [ACE] officer and 7 8 director does to control the corporation.” (See Mot. Dismiss 10-11 (citing Pool v. F. Hoffman-La Roche, 9 Ltd., 386 F. Supp. 3d 1202, 1220-21 (N.D. Cal. 2019)).) However, in asserting this argument, Matulich 10 relies upon Hertz Corp. v. Friend, 559 U.S. 77 (2010) and Pool, but ignores 3123 SMB LLC v. Horn, 880 11 F.3d 461 (9th Cir. 2018). In Hertz, the Supreme Court clarified that a corporation’s “principal place of 12 business” is “the place where a corporation’s officers direct, control, and coordinate the corporation’s 13 activities[,]” which is also known as the corporation’s “nerve center.” 559 U.S. 77, 92-93 (2010). 14 15 [I]t should normally be the place where the corporation maintains its headquarters— provided that the headquarters is the actual center of direction, control, and coordination, 16 i.e., the “nerve center,” and not simply an office where the corporation holds its board meetings (for example, attended by directors and officers who have traveled there for the 17 occasion).

18 Id. at 93 (emphasis added). The Ninth Circuit has recognized Hertz as binding precedent; however, it has 19 recognized an exception for holding companies because their primary purpose of holding interest in other 20 companies “is passive.” Horn, 880 F.3d at 465 (citation omitted). A holding company is “not ‘normal’” 21 since “[i]t engages in little activity, so there is little to direct, control, or coordinate.” Id. The Ninth Circuit 22 23 recognized Johnson v. SmithKline Beecham Corp., 724 F.3d 337 (3d Cir. 2013), wherein the Third Circuit 24 explained why “the Supreme Court’s dictum [in Hertz] that a corporation’s nerve center is ‘normally . . . 25 not simply an office where the corporation holds its board meetings’ . . . [is] inapplicable to holding 26 companies[.]” Horn, 880 F.3d at 465. For a holding company “relatively short, quarterly board meetings 27 may well be all that is required to direct and control the company’s limited work” as the holding company’s 28 1 primary activity of managing its assets “is straightforward and takes little time” such that “[t]he location 2 of board meetings is therefore a more significant jurisdictional fact . . . than it was in Hertz[.]” Id. (quoting 3 Johnson, 724 F.3d at 354.) Ultimately, the Ninth Circuit adopted “a rule presuming that from inception a 4 holding company directs its business from the place where it holds board meetings[,]” which may be 5 rebutted if “evidence shows that the corporation is directed from elsewhere.” See id. at 469-70. It rejected 6 the “assumption that a holding company’s principal place of business is the state where its officers reside 7 8 in.” Id. at 469. Further, the Ninth Circuit remarked on the difficulty of applying that assumption, especially 9 with “holding companies that have more than one decision maker living in more than one state.” Id. Here, 10 “ACE is a holding company whose predominant business activity is the passive investment in GNC, there 11 are little to no day-to-day activities to manage” and “all decisions affecting the company occur during the 12 director meetings.” (Mass Decl. ¶ 7, ECF No. 37-4.) As such, Matulich’s argument that Plaintiffs must 13 allege what each ACE officer and director does to control ACE is incorrect. Additionally, Matulich’s 14 15 reliance upon Pool for that assertion is misplaced as the parties in Pool were not holding companies. 16 In their FAC, Plaintiffs assert that ACE, as a holding company, had its board meetings for the past 17 year “noticed for Westport, Connecticut (with directors generally attending remotely).” (FAC ¶ 5.) Even 18 with the Ninth Circuit’s test from Horn, there is the additional complication that ACE’s board meetings 19 are held virtually such that it may be hard to definitively determine the location from where ACE’s business 20 is directed from.3 In Johnson, the case that the Ninth Circuit relied upon in Horn, the Third Circuit still 21 concluded that the holding company’s principal place of business was Wilmington, Delaware because that 22 23 is where the board meetings were held, even though two of the three board members often participated in 24 the board meetings telephonically. Johnson, 724 F.3d at 342, 354, 356; but see Travelers Com. Ins. Co. v. 25 Liberty Utilities (CalPeco Elec.) LLC, No. 2:21-CV-01485-MCE-AC, 2022 WL 992935, at *3 (E.D. Cal. 26 27 3 The Supreme Court recognized this complication during “this era of telecommuting, [where] some corporations may divide their command and coordinating functions among officers who work at several different locations, perhaps communicating over 28 1 Apr. 1, 2022) (declining to apply Horn where the corporation’s board meetings were routinely not held in- 2 person);4 P2Es Holdings, LLC v. Trinity Petro. Mgmt., LLC, No. 4:22-cv-03002, 2023 WL 1967949, at *5 3 (S.D. Tex. Feb. 13, 2023) (questioning whether virtual board meetings facilitated in Denver determines 4 that the principal place of business is in Denver). Recognizing the Ninth Circuit’s reliance upon Johnson 5 in Horn, this Court elects to apply the general rule that a holding company’s principal place of business is 6 where the company holds its board meetings, even if some board members attend the meeting virtually. 7 8 Additionally, the Ninth Circuit, Third Circuit, and the Supreme Court have recognized the need for a 9 simple, easily-applied test for determining the principal place of business in the interests for judicial 10 administration. See Horn, 880 F.3d at 470 (citing Johnson, 724 F.3d at 355). Further, the Ninth Circuit has 11 recognized the impossibility of determining a holding company’s principal place of business when 12 decision-makers reside in more than one state. Id. at 469; see also Hertz, 559 U.S. at 95-96 (recognizing 13 the imperfection in even the nerve center test where “in this era of telecommuting, some corporations may 14 15 divide their command and coordinating functions among officers who work at several different locations, 16 perhaps communicating over the Internet”). 17 Applying the Ninth Circuit’s test for determining a holding company’s principal place of business, 18 the Court finds that Plaintiffs have adequately plead diversity jurisdiction for ACE by pleading the location 19 of ACE’s board meetings for each corporation. Therefore, Matulich’s facial attack fails. 20 B. Matulich’s factual attack prevails as ACE’s principal place of business is San 21 Francisco, California.

22 Even with the Ninth Circuit’s test for determining a holding company’s principal place of business, 23 the issue of subject matter jurisdiction is not resolved. Matulich asserts a factual attack that ACE’s principal 24 25

26 4 In Travelers Commercial Insurance Co., the court also distinguished Horn where the corporation was newly formed. 2022 WL 992935, at *3. However, the undersigned does not construe Horn so narrowly; rather, the rule that the location of board 27 meetings is the principal place of business for a holding company applied to all holding companies regardless of formation date. See Horn, 880 F.3d at 470 (recognizing the benefits of “a rule presuming that from inception a holding company directs its 28 1 place of business is California, arguing that there is no diversity jurisdiction because he is a citizen of 2 California. (Mot. Dismiss 11.) Specifically, Matulich cites ACE’s bylaws establishing San Francisco as 3 the initial place of business, prior meetings in San Francisco, a San Francisco mailbox, and a Napa bank 4 account. (Id.) 5 From the outset, the Court clarifies that Matulich’s contention that California is ACE’s principal 6 place of business is incorrect because a corporation’s nerve center is not a state, but a single place within 7 8 a state. Hertz, 559 U.S. at 93. “[D]iversity jurisdiction ‘depends upon the state of things at the time of the 9 action brought[.]” Horn, 880 F.3d at 467 (citing Grupo Dataflux v. Atlas Glob. Grp., L.P., 541 U.S. 567, 10 570 (2004)). However, “courts must be alert to the possibility of jurisdictional manipulation.” Horn, 880 11 F.3d at 470-71 (citing Hertz, 559 U.S. at 97). In Horn, the Ninth Circuit identified evidence that the plaintiff 12 LLC’s owners “manipulated the ownership structure of the real property at the center of th[e] lawsuit in 13 order to manufacture diversity [jurisdiction]” and remanded the case to the district court to determine 14 15 whether “there was jurisdictional manipulation that would warrant treating [the plaintiff] as a California 16 citizen[,]” which would destroy diversity jurisdiction with the defendant’s California citizenship. Id. at 17 463. A month before the filing of the lawsuit in Horn, the plaintiff was a California citizen, but the 18 manipulation of the ownership structure “rendered the parties nominally diverse just in time to file this 19 lawsuit in federal court.” Id. at 471. The Ninth Circuit instructed that if the district court found jurisdictional 20 manipulation, “it should ‘take as the “nerve center” the place of actual direction, control, and coordination, 21 in the absence of such manipulation.’” Id. (quoting Hertz, 559 U.S. at 97). “The Supreme Court has at least 22 23 suggested that the party seeking to establish diversity jurisdiction bears the burden of showing that there 24 has been no jurisdictional manipulation when that question arises.” 3123 SMB LLC v. Horn, No. CV 14- 25 8115 DSF (FFMx), 2018 WL 5801875, at *1 (C.D. Cal. May 7, 2018) [hereinafter Horn II] (quoting Hertz, 26 559 U.S. at 96-97). 27 28 1 Here, this lawsuit was initially filed in October 2022, and in May and July of that same year, ACE 2 held board meetings in Westport, Connecticut. (Mass Decl. Ex. 4, 6; ECF No. 37-4 at 38, 56.) Brian Mass, 3 who resides in Connecticut, is one of ACE’s directors and is ACE’s Chief Financial Officer, Treasurer, 4 and Secretary, and attests that he attends ACE’s director meetings in person. (Mass Decl. ¶¶ 1, 7, ECF No. 5 37-4.) Meanwhile, ACE’s two other directors, Brett Lay who lives in California and Hawaii, and David 6 Yulie who lives in Australia, “appear telephonically for the meetings as needed.” (Id.) 7 8 The Court has concerns of jurisdictional manipulation such that 2022 is not the relevant time frame 9 to determine ACE’s principal place of business. Plaintiffs and Matulich are engaged in highly contentious 10 litigation in multiple fora, ranging from federal district courts, state courts, and arbitration panels. One 11 dominant issue that the Hawaii Arbitration Panel with the Dispute Presentation and Resolution, Inc. 12 adjudicated was “whether ACE effectively removed Matulich as its CEO, which GNC claims ACE did at 13 a validly held special meeting of the ACE Board on January 3, 2021.” (FAC 26.) Ultimately, the Hawaii 14 15 Arbitration Panel “conclude[d] that the ACE special meeting of the ACE Board of Directors held on 16 January 3, 2021, was not called in accordance with the Bylaws of ACE and that therefore, the actions taken 17 at said meeting are void ab initio.” (Id. at 27-28.) After the Hawaii Arbitration Panel reached this 18 conclusion, ACE’s Board held numerous meetings to remove Matulich as ACE’s CEO (id. ¶¶ 26-28), but 19 Matulich vehemently disputes these meetings, (Matulich Decl. ¶ 11, ECF No. 18-1).5 20 Plaintiffs only provide evidence of ACE meetings noticed for Connecticut (for what appears to be 21 22 the first time) mere months before they filed this instant action. The parties’ relationships have clearly 23 soured as demonstrated by the 2021 failed attempt to remove Matulich and the numerous lawsuits between 24 the parties. For these reasons, there appears to be jurisdictional manipulation. Plaintiffs have not provided 25 evidence to the contrary; therefore, the Court looks to the parties’ citizenships prior to the hostility—the 26 27

5 At this juncture, the undersigned makes no conclusion about the validity of these removals or Matulich’s current status with 28 1 || time period of 2019 to 2020. See Horn I, 2018 WL 5801875, at *1-2 (looking at time period prior to filins of action to determine jurisdictional manipulation). During that time frame, ACE’s minutes, each on signed by Brian Mass, list the location of board meetings as San Francisco, California, or using □□□□□□□□□ 4 time. (See ECF No. 18-2 at 28, 34, 43, 51, 62.)° The last of these ACE board meetings occurred on Februar 5 6 || 5» 2020, pre-COVID-19 pandemic, and was held via conference call. (/d. at 62.) Therefore, the Cour 7 || concludes that ACE’s principal place of business for the instant action is San Francisco, California. Witl 8 || Matulich as a citizen of California, the parties are not diverse, and the Court does not need to analyze th ? amount in controversy to conclude that there is no diversity subject matter jurisdiction. 10 IV. CONCLUSION 11 Given the lack of diversity subject matter jurisdiction, the Court GRANTS Defendant Matulich’ 12 B motion to dismiss (ECF No. 31) and dismisses the action. As such, the Court lacks authority to rule on th 14 || merits of Plaintiffs’ motion to enjoin arbitration (ECF No. 33). 15 IT IS SO ORDERED this 29th day of September, 2023. 16 17 OAS A U 18 RAMONA V. Manciloxa Designated Judge 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 %6 6 The Hawaii Arbitration Panel conclusion that “[nJo ACE board meetings were ever held in person at the designated corporat office [located in San Francisco]—all actions of the ACE board were always handled by electronic communications[,]” □□□□□ 07 27) does not necessarily negate this Court’s conclusion that ACE’s principal place of business is California. The meeting minute place the location of the board meetings as San Francisco. Moreover, ACE’s 2022 board meetings are noticed for Connecticu 28 but also appear to be conducted via electronic communications with various board members appearing virtually (see Mass Dec! {| 7); nevertheless, Plaintiffs similarly contend that Connecticut is ACE’s principal place of business (FAC 4 5).