MILON v. Nordstrom, Inc.

N.D. California

MILON v. Nordstrom, Inc.

DecidedDecember 13, 2023

Docket4:23-cv-05342

StatusUnknown

This text of MILON v. Nordstrom, Inc. (MILON v. Nordstrom, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, N.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

MILON v. Nordstrom, Inc., (N.D. Cal. 2023).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 YURI MILON, Case No. 23-cv-05342-JSW 8 Plaintiff, ORDER DIRECTING DEFENDANTS 9 Vv. TO SUPPLEMENT RECORD 10 NORDSTROM, INC., et al., Re: Dkt. No. 6 11 Defendants.

13 Defendants Nordstrom, Inc. and Bayshore 101, LLC (“Bayshore”) removed this action on S 14 || the basis of diversity jurisdiction. Defendants did not, however, address the citizenship of the 3 15 || members of Bayshore or Gateway 101, LLC. “[L]ike a partnership, an LLC is a citizen of every 16 || state of which its owners/members are citizens.” Johnson v. Columbia Properties Anchorage, i 17 || L.P., 437 F.3d 894, 899 (9th Cir. 2006); see also McKay v. Fay Servicing, LLC, No. 23-cv-3731- Z 18 |} EMC, 2023 WL 4848855, at *1 (N.D. Cal. July 28, 2023). Plaintiff attaches a Secretary of State 19 || filing that identifies S&Y Giverny Corporation as Bayshore as its “manager or member” and lists 20 || a California address for that corporation. (Declaration of Daniel Geoulla, J§ 4-5, Ex. 2.) The 21 Court ORDERS Defendants to file a supplemental declaration limited to facts regarding the 22 |} membership of Bayshore and Gateway by no later than December 18, 2023. The Court will accept 23 || no additional argument on Plaintiff's motion to remand, which remains under submission. 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. _ 25 || Dated: December 13, 2023 / “ | / / / 26 / y nt JEFFREY S. WHIT, 27 k nited fates Dist Act Judge 28

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 YURI MILON, Case No. 23-cv-05342-JSW 8 Plaintiff, ORDER DIRECTING DEFENDANTS 9 Vv. TO SUPPLEMENT RECORD 10 NORDSTROM, INC., et al., Re: Dkt. No. 6 11 Defendants.

13 Defendants Nordstrom, Inc. and Bayshore 101, LLC (“Bayshore”) removed this action on S 14 || the basis of diversity jurisdiction. Defendants did not, however, address the citizenship of the 3 15 || members of Bayshore or Gateway 101, LLC. “[L]ike a partnership, an LLC is a citizen of every 16 || state of which its owners/members are citizens.” Johnson v. Columbia Properties Anchorage, i 17 || L.P., 437 F.3d 894, 899 (9th Cir. 2006); see also McKay v. Fay Servicing, LLC, No. 23-cv-3731- Z 18 |} EMC, 2023 WL 4848855, at *1 (N.D. Cal. July 28, 2023). Plaintiff attaches a Secretary of State 19 || filing that identifies S&Y Giverny Corporation as Bayshore as its “manager or member” and lists 20 || a California address for that corporation. (Declaration of Daniel Geoulla, J§ 4-5, Ex. 2.) The 21 Court ORDERS Defendants to file a supplemental declaration limited to facts regarding the 22 |} membership of Bayshore and Gateway by no later than December 18, 2023. The Court will accept 23 || no additional argument on Plaintiff's motion to remand, which remains under submission. 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. _ 25 || Dated: December 13, 2023 / “ | / / / 26 / y nt JEFFREY S. WHIT, 27 k nited fates Dist Act Judge 28

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

MILON v. Nordstrom, Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/milon-v-nordstrom-inc-cand-2023.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack