Hotel Roslyn LLC v. AmGuard Insurance Company

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: April 25, 2024
• Docket: 2:22-cv-01344
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3

4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 7 HOTEL ROSLYN, LLC f/k/a ELLEN & Case No. 2:22-cv-01344-TMC 8 NILS, LLC and SKOBO, LLC, ORDER TO FILE AMENDED 9 CORPORATE DISCLOSURE Plaintiff, STATEMENTS 10 v. 11 AMGUARD INSURANCE COMPANY, a 12 Pennsylvania corporation, 13 Defendant. 14

15 This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiffs Hotel Roslyn, LLC and SKOBO, LLC 16 (Dkt. 39), and Defendant AmGuard Insurance Company’s (Dkt. 45) cross-motions for summary 17 judgment. As part of its review of those motions, the Court has also reviewed the parties’ 18 corporate disclosure statements (Dkt. 5, 6) and requires clarification. The Court finds that the 19 filings do not provide an adequate basis for diversity jurisdiction, and therefore orders Plaintiffs 20 Hotel Roslyn and SKOBO, and Defendant AmGuard, to file amended corporate disclosure 21 statements within seven (7) days of the date of this Order with information sufficient to establish 22 the Court’s jurisdiction. 23 The Court has “an independent obligation to determine whether subject-matter 24 1 jurisdiction exists.” Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 514 (2006). Federal diversity 2 jurisdiction exists over all civil actions where the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 and the 3 action is between citizens of different states. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1). There must be complete

4 diversity of citizenship between the opposing parties. See Kuntz v. Lamar Corp., 385 F.3d 1177, 5 1181 (9th Cir. 2004). 6 To assess diversity jurisdiction involving a limited liability company, the Court must 7 consider the domicile of all members of the LLC. Johnson v. Columbia Props. Anchorage, LP, 8 437 F.3d 894, 899 (9th Cir. 2006). Separately, for corporations, “in a suit involving a subsidiary 9 corporation, the court looks to the state of incorporation and principal place of business of the 10 subsidiary, and not its parent.” Danjaq, S.A. v. Pathe Commc’ns Corp., 979 F.2d 772, 775 (9th 11 Cir. 1992) (internal citation omitted). There is an exception to this rule of corporate citizenship if 12 the subsidiary is the alter ego of the parent corporation. Id. To assist these determinations, Local

13 Civil Rule 7.1(b) requires that corporate disclosure statements must “list those states in which the 14 party, owners, partners, or members” of any disclosed entity “are citizens.” See LCR 7.1(b). 15 Subject matter jurisdiction in this case is based on diversity of citizenship. See Dkt. 1 at 16 3. To analyze diversity jurisdiction, the Court must consider the domicile of all members of 17 Plaintiff LLCs Hotel Roslyn and SKOBO, as well as the citizenship of Defendant corporation 18 AmGuard and its corporate owners. Johnson, 437 F.3d at 899; Danjaq, 979 F.2d at 775. Hotel 19 Roslyn, LLC and SKOBO, LLC’s corporate disclosure statement does not identify the domiciles 20 of their LLC members, see Dkt. 6; and AmGuard’s statement does not identify the place of 21 incorporation or principal place of business of itself or its corporate owners, see Dkt. 5. 22 Accordingly, pursuant to Local Civil Rule 7.1(b), the Court ORDERS Plaintiffs Hotel

23 Roslyn and SKOBO to file an amended corporate disclosure statement identifying the citizenship 24 of every member of the Hotel Roslyn and SKOBO limited liability companies, and ORDERS 1 Defendant AmGuard to file an amended corporate disclosure statement identifying the place of 2 incorporation and principal place of business of itself and its corporate owners. The parties shall 3 file their amended corporate disclosure statements as soon as possible but no later than May 2,

4 2024. 5 Dated this 25th day of April, 2024. 6 A 7 Tiffany M. Cartwright 8 United States District Judge

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24