Kym Brooks v. T.J. Maxx of CA, LLC

• Court: District Court, C.D. California
• Decided: August 19, 2020
• Docket: 5:20-cv-01654
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

JS-6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Case No. CV 20-01654 PA (SHKx) Date August 19, 2020 Title Kym Brooks v. T.J. Maxx of CA, LLC, 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

Before the Court is a Notice of Removal filed by defendants T.J. Maxx of CA, LLC and Pamela McKnight (“Defendants”). Defendants assert this Court has jurisdiction over the action brought against it by plaintiff Kym Brooks (“Plaintiff”) 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 (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). A removed action must be remanded to state court if the federal court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). “The burden of establishing federal jurisdiction is on the party seeking removal, and the removal statute is strictly construed against removal jurisdiction.” Prize Frize, Inc. v. Matrix (U.S.) Inc., 167 F.3d 1261, 1265 (9th Cir. 1999). “Federal jurisdiction must be rejected if there is any doubt as to the right of removal in the first instance.” Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992). In attempting to invoke this Court’s diversity jurisdiction, Defendants must prove 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 place 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 1s 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 each of its members. See Johnson v. Columbia Props. Anchorage, LP, 437 F.3d 894, 899 (9th Cir.

JS-6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Case No. CV 20-01654 PA (SHKx) Date August 19, 2020 Title Kym Brooks v. T.J. Maxx of CA, LLC, et al. 2006) (“[L]ike a partnership, an LLC 1s a citizen of every state of which its owners/members are citizens.”’). The Notice of Removal alleges that defendant T.J. Maxx of CA, LLC “is now, and ever since this action commenced has been, incorporated under the laws of the State of Delaware.” (Notice of Removal § 17.) “Further, ...T.J. Maxx’s principal place of business is, and has been at all times since this action commenced, located in the State of Massachusetts.” (Id.) “Therefore, for purposes of diversity of citizenship, T.J. Maxx of CA, LLC is a citizen of Delaware and Massachusetts, not a citizen of California.” (Id. ¥ 19.) As a limited liability company, defendant T.J. Maxx of CA, LLC’s citizenship is determined by the citizenship of its members, which Defendants have not alleged. Specifically, the Notice of Removal alleges T.J. Maxx of CA, LLC’s citizenship as if it were a corporation, rather than as an LLC. As a result, Defendants have not satisfactorily alleged their own citizenship. “Absent unusual circumstances, a party seeking to invoke diversity jurisdiction should be able to allege affirmatively the actual citizenship of the relevant parties.” Kanter, 265 F.3d at 857. Moreover, a defendant is presumed to know the facts surrounding its own citizenship. See, e.g., Leon v. Gordon Trucking, Inc., 76 F. Supp. 3d 1055, 1063 (C.D. Cal. 2014); Cretian v. Job1USA, Inc., No. 09-CV-770-ST, 2009 WL 4841039, at *1 (D. Or. Dec. 11, 2009) (“Defendant is presumed to know its own citizenship; indeed it is in the best position to know it for purposes of removal.”). By failing to allege T.J. Maxx of CA, LLC’s members’ citizenship, Defendants have failed to establish their own citizenship and, therefore, this Court’s diversity jurisdiction. For the foregoing reasons, Defendants have failed to satisfy their burden of showing that diversity jurisdiction exists over this action. Accordingly, this action is hereby remanded to Riverside Superior Court, Case No. RIC2002349, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). IT IS SO ORDERED.