Hanson v. Greystar Real Estate Partners LLC

W.D. Washington

Hanson v. Greystar Real Estate Partners LLC

DecidedMay 23, 2024

Docket2:24-cv-00480

StatusUnknown

This text of Hanson v. Greystar Real Estate Partners LLC (Hanson v. Greystar Real Estate Partners LLC) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. Washington primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hanson v. Greystar Real Estate Partners LLC, (W.D. Wash. 2024).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 5 AT TACOMA 6 DARVEL HANSON, et al., Case No. C24-480 TLF 7 Plaintiffs, v. ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 8 REMAND RHB MIRO OWNER LLC, et al., 9 Defendants. 10

11 This matter is before the Court on Defendant RHB Miro Owner, LLC’s (“RHB”) 12 motion to remand. Dkt. 13. Plaintiffs did not file a response. 13 RHB removed this case to the United States District Court for the Western 14 District of Washington on April 10, 2024, under 28 U.S.C. § 1441 (diversity of 15 citizenship). Dkt. 1 (sealed). RHB states that while preparing its initial corporate 16 disclosures under Fed. R. Civ. P. 7.1(a)(2), counsel for RHB learned that upper tier 17 parent and/or ownership entities of RHB include numerous limited liability companies 18 and limited partnerships far up the corporate chain that might include Washington 19 residents or citizens. Dkt. 14 (Declaration of Kerry Gress) at ¶ 5. RHB believes that one 20 or more of the passive investors may be Washington citizens. Id. RHB filed the instant 21 motion out of an abundance due to concern that their ownership interest may impact 22 diversity and this Court’s subject matter jurisdiction. Id. 23 24 1 Federal jurisdiction must be rejected if there is any doubt as to the right of 2 removal in the first instance. Gaus v. Miles, 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992) (per 3 curiam). A case must be remanded to state court “if at any time before final judgment it 4 appears that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction”. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(c).

5 The party asserting federal jurisdiction has the burden of proof on a motion to 6 remand to state court. See Carrington v. City of Tacoma, Dep't of Pub. Utilities, Light 7 Div., 276 F. Supp. 3d 1035, 1041 (W.D. Wash. 2017); see also Conrad Associates v. 8 Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co., 994 F. Supp. 1196 (N.D. Cal. 1998). The removal 9 statute is strictly construed against removal jurisdiction. The strong presumption against 10 removal jurisdiction means that the defendant always has the burden of establishing 11 removal is proper. Conrad, 994 F. Supp. at 1198. It is obligated to do so by a 12 preponderance of the evidence. Id. at 1199; see also Gaus v. Miles, 980 F.2d at 567; 13 Hunter v. Philip Morris USA, 582 F.3d 1039, 1042 (9th Cir. 2009). 14 Here, because the defendants have submitted briefing declaring there is serious

15 doubt about whether the defendants have the right to removal from state court to federal 16 court in the first place, federal jurisdiction must be rejected, and RHB’s motion must be 17 GRANTED. Id. This case is REMANED to King County Superior Court. 18 19 Dated this 23rd day of May, 2024. 20 21 A 22 Theresa L. Fricke 23 United States Magistrate Judge

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 5 AT TACOMA 6 DARVEL HANSON, et al., Case No. C24-480 TLF 7 Plaintiffs, v. ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 8 REMAND RHB MIRO OWNER LLC, et al., 9 Defendants. 10

11 This matter is before the Court on Defendant RHB Miro Owner, LLC’s (“RHB”) 12 motion to remand. Dkt. 13. Plaintiffs did not file a response. 13 RHB removed this case to the United States District Court for the Western 14 District of Washington on April 10, 2024, under 28 U.S.C. § 1441 (diversity of 15 citizenship). Dkt. 1 (sealed). RHB states that while preparing its initial corporate 16 disclosures under Fed. R. Civ. P. 7.1(a)(2), counsel for RHB learned that upper tier 17 parent and/or ownership entities of RHB include numerous limited liability companies 18 and limited partnerships far up the corporate chain that might include Washington 19 residents or citizens. Dkt. 14 (Declaration of Kerry Gress) at ¶ 5. RHB believes that one 20 or more of the passive investors may be Washington citizens. Id. RHB filed the instant 21 motion out of an abundance due to concern that their ownership interest may impact 22 diversity and this Court’s subject matter jurisdiction. Id. 23 24 1 Federal jurisdiction must be rejected if there is any doubt as to the right of 2 removal in the first instance. Gaus v. Miles, 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992) (per 3 curiam). A case must be remanded to state court “if at any time before final judgment it 4 appears that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction”. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(c).

5 The party asserting federal jurisdiction has the burden of proof on a motion to 6 remand to state court. See Carrington v. City of Tacoma, Dep't of Pub. Utilities, Light 7 Div., 276 F. Supp. 3d 1035, 1041 (W.D. Wash. 2017); see also Conrad Associates v. 8 Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co., 994 F. Supp. 1196 (N.D. Cal. 1998). The removal 9 statute is strictly construed against removal jurisdiction. The strong presumption against 10 removal jurisdiction means that the defendant always has the burden of establishing 11 removal is proper. Conrad, 994 F. Supp. at 1198. It is obligated to do so by a 12 preponderance of the evidence. Id. at 1199; see also Gaus v. Miles, 980 F.2d at 567; 13 Hunter v. Philip Morris USA, 582 F.3d 1039, 1042 (9th Cir. 2009). 14 Here, because the defendants have submitted briefing declaring there is serious

15 doubt about whether the defendants have the right to removal from state court to federal 16 court in the first place, federal jurisdiction must be rejected, and RHB’s motion must be 17 GRANTED. Id. This case is REMANED to King County Superior Court. 18 19 Dated this 23rd day of May, 2024. 20 21 A 22 Theresa L. Fricke 23 United States Magistrate Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Hanson v. Greystar Real Estate Partners LLC, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hanson-v-greystar-real-estate-partners-llc-wawd-2024.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack