Jose L. Aceves v. Coach Royal 003 LP

• Court: District Court, C.D. California
• Decided: February 7, 2023
• Docket: 8:21-cv-01901
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

Case 8:21-cv-01901-CJC-JDE Document 61 Filed 02/07/23 Page 1 of 3 Page ID #:4682

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 SOUTHERN DIVISION 11 ) 12 ) Case No.: SACV 21-01901-CJC (JDEx) JOSE L. ACEVEZ, et al., ) 13 ) ) 14 Plaintiffs, ) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY ) THIS ACTION SHOULD NOT BE 15 v. ) REMANDED FOR LACK OF ) SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION 16 ) COACH ROYAL-003-LP; KINGSLEY ) 17 ) MANAGEMENT CORP.; and DOES 1 ) 18 through 50, inclusive, ) ) 19 ) Defendants. ) 20 ) ) 21

22 Over one hundred current and former residents of Coach Royal Mobile Home Park 23 (the “Park”) (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) bring this action against the Park’s owner and 24 manager, Defendants Coach Royal-003-LP and Kingsley Management Corp. 25 (collectively, “Defendants”). (See Dkt. 4 [Complaint, hereafter “Compl.”].) Plaintiffs 26 originally brought this action in the Superior Court of California, County of Orange, but 27 28

-1- Case 8:21-cv-01901-CJC-JDE Document 61 Filed 02/07/23 Page 2 of 3 Page ID #:4683

1 Defendants subsequently removed to this Court, asserting diversity jurisdiction. (See 2 Dkt. 1 [Notice of Removal].) 3 4 In their notice of removal, Defendants allege that Coach Royal-003-LP was and is 5 “a Utah limited liability corporation with its principal place of business in Provo, Utah.” 6 (Notice ¶ 7.) Presumably, Defendants meant limited liability company (“LLC”).1 These 7 allegations on the state of organization and principal place of business are inadequate, 8 however, because “an LLC is a citizen of every state of which its owners/members are 9 citizens.” Johnson v. Columbia Props. Anchorage, LP, 437 F.3d 894, 899 (9th Cir. 10 2006). Defendants’ “notice of removal fails to state the citizenship of the . . . members of 11 [the LLC defendant], and thus, [they] have failed to satisfy their burden to show complete 12 diversity between the parties.” Lindley Contours, LLC v. AABB Fitness Holdings, Inc., 13 414 F. App’x 62, 64 (9th Cir. 2011); see also United Fin. Cas. Co. v. Bratcher, No. 22- 14 cv-03624, 2022 WL 16836972, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 9, 2022) (“Plaintiff fails, however, 15 to identify the owners and/or members of [the LLC defendant], let alone the states of 16 which each owner and/or member is a citizen. In the absence of such allegations, the 17 complaint is deficient.”); Miller v. BMW of N. Am., No. 18-cv-02498, 2018 WL 6243019, 18 at *2 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 28, 2018) (“[T]o properly plead diversity, a limited liability 19 company must affirmatively allege the citizenship of each of its members. A failure to do 20 so can result in dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.” (citation omitted)). 21 22 Accordingly, Defendants are hereby ORDERED to show cause why this matter 23 should not be remanded for lack of subject matter jurisdiction by February 21, 2023. 24 Defendants shall file a written response to this Order and shall file an appropriate motion 25 1 The party’s name in fact suggests it is a limited partnership (“LP”), not a LLC. (See id.); see also 26 Utah Business Search, Utah.gov, https://secure.utah.gov/bes/index.html (last visited Feb. 7, 2023) (enter 27 “Coach Royal 003” in the “Business Name” field; click “Search”; then select “COACH ROYAL - 003, L.P.”) (noting that the entity is an LP). In any event, since an LP is a citizen of every state of which 28 each partner—general or limited—is a citizen, see Carden v. Arkoma Assocs., 494 U.S. 185, 195–96 (1990), the analysis would be the same regardless of whether Coach Royal-003-LP were a LP or LLC.

-2- se 8:21-cv-01901-CJC-JDE Document 61 Filed 02/07/23 Page 3o0f3 Page ID #:4684

1 || for leave to amend the notice of removal to correct the deficiency consistent with the 2 || Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules. Plaintiffs are not obligated to file 3 ||a written response to this Order, but should they wish to do so, Plaintiffs are ORDERED 4 ||to file their response by February 28, 2023. 6 Further, since it is appropriate to resolve the jurisdictional issues first, the hearing 7 ||dates on Defendants’ motions for summary judgment, (see Dkt. 52 [Feb. 13, 2023]; 8 || Dkt. 54 [Feb. 21, 2023]; Dkt. 56 [Feb. 27, 2023]), are hereby VACATED. The hearing 9 □□ dates will be rescheduled at a later date if it is appropriate. 10 11 12 DATED: February 7, 2023 Zo ; je 13 oO — ee 14 CORMAC J. CARNEY 15 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

3.