Maxitransfers LLC v. Envios La Costenita 1 Inc

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: August 6, 2024
• Docket: 2:24-cv-01016
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4

5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 9 10 MAXITRANSFERS LLC, CASE NO. 2:24-cv-01016-LK 11 Plaintiff, ORDER OF DISMISSAL 12 v. 13 ENVIOS LA COSTENITA 1, INC. et al., 14 Defendants. 15

16 This matter comes before the Court sua sponte. Plaintiff Maxitransfers LLC has sued 17 Defendants Envios La Constenita 1, Inc. and Nancy Cardenas Garcia, alleging that “[s]ubject 18 matter jurisdiction is proper in this court as the parties are citizens of different states and the 19 amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.” Dkt. No. 1 at 2. However, the complaint fails to establish 20 subject matter jurisdiction. 21 Federal courts “have an independent obligation to determine whether subject-matter 22 jurisdiction exists[.]” Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 514 (2006). This determination is an 23 “inflexible” threshold requirement that must be made “without exception, for jurisdiction is power 24 to declare the law, and without jurisdiction the court cannot proceed at all in any cause.” Ruhrgas 1 AG v. Marathon Oil Co., 526 U.S. 574, 577 (1999) (cleaned up). When subject matter jurisdiction 2 is absent, courts “must dismiss the action.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). 3 “Absent unusual circumstances, a party seeking to invoke diversity jurisdiction should be 4 able to allege affirmatively the actual citizenship of the relevant parties.” Kanter v. Warner-

5 Lambert Co., 265 F.3d 853, 857 (9th Cir. 2001); Dodo Int’l, Inc. v. Parker, No. C20-1116-JCC, 6 2020 WL 12834160, at *1 (W.D. Wash. Dec. 30, 2020).1 “In cases where entities rather than 7 individuals are litigants, diversity jurisdiction depends on the form of the entity.” Johnson v. 8 Columbia Props. Anchorage, LP, 437 F.3d 894, 899 (9th Cir. 2006). Maxitransfers avers that it 9 “is a Delaware limited liability company with its principal place of business” in Irving, Texas. Dkt. 10 No. 1 at 1. An LLC “is a citizen of every state of which its owners/members are citizens.” Johnson, 11 437 F.3d at 899. According to Maxitransfers, “[i]ts sole member is a California trust.” Dkt. No. 1 12 at 1. Maxitransfers does not identify this trust in its complaint, but represents in its corporate 13 disclosure statement that the trust is “2020 Maxitransfers Trust, a trust organized under the law of 14 California.” Dkt. No. 6 at 1. Citizenship of a trust depends upon whether it is a “traditional trust”

15 or an unincorporated artificial entity which possesses the “trust” label but has “little in common 16 with traditional trusts.” Demarest v. HSBC Bank USA, N.A., 920 F.3d 1223, 1229 (9th Cir. 2019); 17 see also Americold Realty Tr. v. Conagra Foods, Inc., 577 U.S. 378, 383 (2016). Maxitransfers’ 18 complaint is bereft of any such information. See generally Dkt. No. 1. 19 To the extent 2020 Maxitransfers Trust is a traditional trust, it “has the citizenship of its 20 trustee or trustees.” Johnson, 437 F.3d at 899. In its corporate disclosure statement (and not its 21 complaint), Maxitransfers states that “[t]he sole trustee of 2020 Maxitransfers Trust is Joseph M. 22

1 “If the information necessary to establish the diversity of the citizenship of a defendant is not reasonably available 23 to a plaintiff, the plaintiff may plead its jurisdictional allegations as to that defendant on information and belief.” Dodo Int’l, 2020 WL 12834160, at *2 (cleaned up and quoting Carolina Cas. Ins. Co. v. Team Equip., Inc., 741 F.3d 1082, 24 1086 (9th Cir. 2014)). 1 Niehaus, a California resident.” Dkt. No. 6 at 1. But “residency is not equivalent to citizenship.” 2 Ehrman v. Cox Commc’ns, Inc., 932 F.3d 1223, 1227 (9th Cir. 2019). “[A] natural person’s state 3 citizenship is . . . determined by her state of domicile, not her state of residence.” Kanter, 265 F.3d 4 at 857. “A person’s domicile is her permanent home, where she resides with the intention to remain

5 or to which she intends to return.” Id. (citing Lew v. Moss, 797 F.2d 747, 749 (9th Cir. 1986)). It 6 follows that “[a] person residing in a given state is not necessarily domiciled there, and thus is not 7 necessarily a citizen of that state.” Id. Therefore, even assuming that 2020 Maxitransfers Trust is 8 a traditional trust, Niehaus’ California residency is insufficient to establish California citizenship. 9 Similarly, Maxitransfers’ complaint alleges only that Cardenas Garcia is a Washington 10 resident, as opposed to a Washington domiciliary. Dkt. No. 1 at 2. Maxitransfers has therefore also 11 failed to plead Cardenas Garcia’s citizenship. See Fifty Assocs. v. Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 446 12 F.2d 1187, 1190 (9th Cir. 1970) (“Failure to make proper and complete allegations of diversity 13 jurisdiction relegates a litigant to . . . jurisdictional purgatory[.]”). 14 For the foregoing reasons, Maxitransfers’ complaint, Dkt. No. 1, is DISMISSED

15 WITHOUT PREJUDICE and its motion for a temporary restraining order, Dkt. No. 7, is DENIED 16 as moot. On or before August 27, 2024, Maxitransfers may file an amended complaint that properly 17 establishes the grounds for the Court’s exercise of subject matter jurisdiction. 18 Dated this 6th day of August, 2024. A 19 Lauren King 20 United States District Judge

21 22 23 24