Julie Flores v. AccessLex Institute

• Court: District Court, C.D. California
• Decided: August 19, 2020
• Docket: 2:20-cv-07493
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

JS-6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Case No. CV 20-7493 PA (MAAx) Date August 19, 2020 Title Julie Flores v. AccessLex Institute, et al.

Present: The Honorable PERCY ANDERSON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE T. Jackson Not Reported N/A Deputy Clerk Court Reporter Tape No. Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs: Attorneys Present for Defendants: None None Proceedings: IN CHAMBERS - COURT ORDER The Court is in receipt of a Notice of Removal filed by defendant AccessLex Institute (“Removing Defendant’). This action was filed by plaintiff Julie Flores (“Plaintiff”) against defendants Access Group, Inc., Access Group Education Lending, and Removing Defendant. Removing Defendant asserts that this Court has jurisdiction over the action based on the Court’s diversity jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, having subject matter jurisdiction only over matters authorized by the Constitution and Congress. See, e.g., Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 511 U.S. 375, 377, 114 S. Ct. 1673, 1675, 128 L. Ed. 2d 391 (1994). A suit filed in state court may be removed to federal court if the federal court would have had original jurisdiction over the suit. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). “The removal statute 1s strictly construed against removal jurisdiction, and the burden of establishing federal jurisdiction falls to the party invoking the statute.” California ex rel. Lockyer v. Dynegy, Inc., 375 F.3d 831, 838 (9th Cir. 2004) (citing Ethridge v. Harbor House Rest., 861 F.2d 1389, 1393 (9th Cir. 1988)). In attempting to invoke this Court’s diversity jurisdiction, Removing Defendant must establish that there is complete diversity of citizenship between the parties and that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. 28 U.S.C. § 1332. To establish citizenship for diversity purposes, a natural person must be a citizen of the United States and be domiciled in a particular state. Kantor v. Wellesley Galleries, Ltd., 704 F.2d 1088, 1090 (9th Cir. 1983). Persons are domiciled in the places they reside with the intent to remain or to which they intend to return. See Kanter v. Warner-Lambert Co., 265 F.3d 853, 857 (9th Cir. 2001). For the purposes of diversity jurisdiction, a corporation is a citizen of any state where it is incorporated and of the state where it has its principal place of business. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c); see also Indus. Tectonics, Inc. v. Aero Alloy, 912 F.2d 1090, 1092 (9th Cir. 1990). The citizenship of an LLC is the citizenship of its members. See Johnson v. Columbia Props. Anchorage, LP, 437 F.3d 894, 899 (9th Cir. 2006) (“[L]ike a partnership, an LLC is a citizen of every state of which its owners/members are citizens.”); TPS Utilicom Servs., Inc. v. AT & T Corp., 223 F. Supp. 2d 1089, 1101 (C.D. Cal.

JS-6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Case No. CV 20-7493 PA (MAAx) Date August 19, 2020 Title Julie Flores v. AccessLex Institute, et al. 2002) (“A limited liability company .. . is treated like a partnership for the purpose of establishing citizenship under diversity jurisdiction.’’). The Notice of Removal does not allege the citizenship of defendants Access Group, Inc. or Access Group Education Lending. Because Removing Defendant has not alleged the citizenship of its co-defendants, Removing Defendant has not satisfied its burden when seeking to remove an action to affirmatively allege the citizenship of the parties. See Kanter, 265 F.3d at 857 (“Absent unusual circumstances, a party seeking to invoke diversity jurisdiction should be able to allege affirmatively the actual citizenship of the relevant parties.”). By failing to allege the citizenship of its co-defendants, Removing Defendant has failed to establish “complete diversity” between the parties and, as a result, has failed to meet its burden to establish the Court’s diversity jurisdiction. See Owen Equip. & Erection Co. v. Kroger , 437 U.S. 365, 373, 98 S. Ct. 2396, 2402, 57 L. Ed. 2d 274 (1978); Strawbridge v. Curtiss, 7 U.S. (3 Cranch) 267, 267, 2 L. Ed. 435 (1806). For the foregoing reasons, Removing Defendant has failed to meet its burden of establishing diversity jurisdiction. Accordingly, the Court remands this action to Los Angeles Superior Court, Glendale Courthouse, Case No. 20GDCV00378, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). IT IS SO ORDERED.