Todd Mueller v. Matthew Clarke

• Court: District Court, C.D. California
• Decided: September 28, 2020
• Docket: 8:20-cv-01401
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

2 3 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA BY: CW DEPUTY 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA - SOUTHERN DIVISION 10 11 |) TODD MUELLER and TODD Case No.: SACV 20-01401-CJC(ADSx) | MUELLER AUTOGRAPHS, LLC, Plaintiffs, 14 ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ v MOTION TO REMAND [DKt. 10]

| MATTHEW CLARKE, DUGAN ) KELLEY, CHRISTMAN, KELLEY & ) 17 11 CLARKE, PC, and DOES 1 through 10, 18 ) 19 Defendants. ) 20 ) ao) 21 22 23 INTRODUCTION & BACKGROUND 24 25 Plaintiffs Todd Mueller and Todd Mueller Autographs, LLC filed this action 26 ||}against Defendants Matthew Clarke, Dugan Kelley, Christman, Kelley & Clarke, PC 27 ||(“CKC”), and unnamed Does, asserting claims for legal malpractice and breach of 28 || fiduciary duty. (Dkt. 1-1 [Complaint, hereinafter “Compl.”].) Plaintiffs’ Complaint

1 asserts that Defendants failed to properly represent them in a prior lawsuit against 2 defendants who allegedly conspired to brand Plaintiffs’ legitimate collectable 3 memorabilia as forgeries. (Id.) Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages “in excess of $3 4 million,” consequential damages, and attorneys’ fees and costs. (Id. at 8.) 5 6 Plaintiffs filed their complaint in Orange County Superior Court, but Defendants 7 removed the action to this Court asserting diversity jurisdiction. Before the Court is 8 Plaintiffs’ motion to remand. (Dkt. 10-1 [hereinafter “Mot.”].) For the following 9 reasons, this motion is DENIED.1 10 11 II. LEGAL STANDARD 12 13 A defendant may remove a civil action filed in state court to a federal district court 14 when the federal court would have had original jurisdiction over the action. 28 U.S.C. 15 § 1441. Federal courts have diversity jurisdiction over cases where the amount in 16 controversy exceeds $75,000 and there is complete diversity of citizenship between the 17 parties. 28 U.S.C. § 1332. The removal statute is strictly construed “against removal 18 jurisdiction” and “[f]ederal jurisdiction must be rejected if there is any doubt as to the 19 right of removal in the first instance.” Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 20 1992). “The strong presumption against removal jurisdiction means that the defendant 21 always has the burden of establishing that removal is proper.” Id. (quotations omitted). 22 23 // 24 // 25 // 26

27 1 Having read and considered the papers presented by the parties, the Court finds this matter appropriate 1 || II. DISCUSSION 2 3 Plaintiffs argue that remand is proper because Defendants have failed to establish 4 || diversity of citizenship.2 The Court disagrees. 5 6 It is undisputed that Plaintiffs are Colorado citizens. For diversity purposes, a 7 || person is a “citizen” of the state in which he is domiciled. Kanter v. Warner-Lambert 8 || Co., 265 F.3d 853, 857 (9th Cir. 2001). “A person’s domicile is her permanent home, 9 || where she resides with the intention to remain or to which she intends to return.” Id. 10 || Todd Mueller is domiciled in Colorado. (See Dkt. 10-2 [Declaration of Todd Mueller, 11 ||““Mueller Decl.’’].) Because “an LLC is a citizen of every state of which its []members 12 citizens,” Todd Mueller Autographs, LLC is also a citizen of Colorado. Johnson v. 13 || Columbia Properties Anchorage, LP, 437 F.3d 894, 899 (9th Cir. 2006). Plaintiffs offer 14 |] only that the LLC is “a Colorado limited lability company” through which Mueller 15 || operates his memorabilia business. (Mueller Decl. J 1.) They do not provide evidence of 16 || other members who are citizens of any other states. 17 18 Defendants have established complete diversity of citizenship. A natural person’s 19 || state of citizenship is determined by his state of domicile. Kanter, 265 F.3d at 858. 20 Clarke and Kelley are both domiciled in Texas.? (See Dkt. 18-1 [Declaration of Matthew 21 || Clarke, hereinafter “Clarke Decl.”] 4 13; Dkt. 18-2 [Declaration of Dugan Kelley] § 3.) 22 || CKC is also a citizen of Texas. “[A] professional corporation is to be treated like other 23 24 ||? Plaintiffs do not dispute that the amount in controversy exceeds the statutory requirement of $75,000. 25 Plaintiffs argue that a 2018 Statement of Information filed with the California Secretary of State, which lists Clarke as CKC's designated agent for service of process at a California residence, is an admission that Clarke is a resident of the state. (Mot. at 9-12.) But a natural person’s state of citizenship is 97 || determined by his state of domicile, not his state of residence. Kanter, 265 F.3d at 858. The 2018 form to which Plaintiffs refer concurrently lists a Texas address for Clarke in his capacity as “Chief Executive 28 || Officer.” (Mueller Decl. Ex. C.) Accordingly, this document is not determinative of Clarke’s domicile for diversity jurisdiction.

1 || corporations for purposes of determining the presence or absence of diversity 2 ||jurisdiction.” Hamil v. DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc., 2013 WL 30371170, at *1 (C.D. Cal. 3 18, 2013) (quoting Cote v. Wadel, 796 F.2d 981, 983 (7th Cir. 1986)). Since CKC 4 || was incorporated and has its principal place of business in Texas, it is a citizen of that 5 state. (Clarke Decl. 4 14); see 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1). CKC’s registration forms with the 6 California Secretary of State list CKC’s “Principal Executive Office” as located in 7 || Highland Village, Texas. (Mueller Decl. Exs. B, C.) 8 9 Plaintiffs argue that CKC is a citizen of California. (Mot. at 2.) As an initial 10 matter, even if Plaintiffs are correct that one or more of the Defendants is a citizen of 11 California, a defendant who is a citizen of California does not destroy diversity in this 12 ||case because Plaintiffs are citizens of Colorado, not California. The only way to destroy 13 || diversity is if one of the defendants is a Colorado citizen. Plaintiffs offer no evidence or 14 |}argument that any Defendant is a Colorado citizen. 15 16 Nevertheless, Plaintiffs argue that because CKC filed a “Statement and 17 || Designation by Foreign Professional Corporation” with the California Secretary of State, 1g 1s now a California professional corporation under California Corporations Code 19 13404.5(d). (See Mot. at 8.) However, Section 13404.5(d) does nothing to establish a 20 || professional corporation’s citizenship, but rather merely subjects any professional 21 || corporation doing business in California to the state’s laws and regulations concerning 22 || that profession as well as its courts. This is a registration requirement for “foreign” 23 || corporations doing business in California and—to state the obvious—because they are 24 ||“foreign” to California they are not citizens of the state. That CKC has an office in 25 || California and does some business here is not sufficient to establish citizenship in this 26 |} state. Accordingly, CKC is a citizen of Texas for diversity jurisdiction purposes. 27 28 |} //

1 CONCLUSION 2 3 For these reasons, Plaintiffs’ motion to remand is DENIED. 4 5 DATED: September 28, 2020 : ZL 8 HON. CORMAC J. CARNEY 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 10

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28