Tony Bobulinski v. Hugh Dickson

Opinion

1 JS-6 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 ) 11 TONY BOBULINSKI, ) Case No. 2:25-cv-02713 CV (AJRx) ) 12 ) ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF ) TONY BOBULINSKI’S UNOPPOSED 13 Plaintiff, ) MOTION FOR REMAND [DOC. # 21] ) 14 v. ) HUGH DICKSON, et al., ) 15 ) ) 16 Defendants. ) 17 18 On May 8 2025, Plaintiff Tony Bobulinski (“Plaintiff”) filed an Unopposed 19 Motion for Remand, Doc. # 21 (“Motion”). The Motion designated May 23, 2025, for a 20 hearing of the Motion. See Id. On May 8, 2025, Plaintiff filed a Reply in support of the 21 Motion. Doc. # 22. Plaintiff sought remand of this case based on evidence that at least 22 one partner of Defendant Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP (“Sheppard 23 Mulllin”) was an American citizen domiciled abroad, which has the effect of destroying 24 diversity for the purposes of federal subject matter jurisdiction. See Doc. # 21-1 25 [Declaration of Sam S. Meehan] ¶¶ 2–3; Lincoln Prop. Co. v. Roche, 546 U.S. 81, 84 26 (2005) (“[T]o meet the complete diversity requirement [for subject-matter jurisdiction], 27 all partners, limited as well as general, must be diverse from all parties on the opposing 28 side.”) (citing Carden v. Arkoma Assocs., 494 U.S. 185, 192–97 (1990)); Swiger v. 1 || Allegheny Energy, Inc., 540 F.3d 179, 185 (3d Cir. 2008) (“Because Morgan Lewis has a 2 stateless partner, and thus, all partners of Morgan Lewis are not diverse from all parties 3 ||on the opposing side, the district court correctly held that it lacked diversity jurisdiction 4 this action.”); Int’] Venture Assocs. v. Hawayek, No. C 13-01254 RS, 2013 WL 5 || 2646188, at *3 (N.D. Cal. June 12, 2013) (holding that since a U.S. citizen domiciled 6 ||abroad was a partner of the plaintiff partnership, the partnership was considered 7 || ‘‘stateless” and there was no diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1)). 8 The May 23, 2025, hearing date required Defendants to file an opposition to the 9 ||Motion no later than May 2, 2025. See Local Rule 7-9. Defendants did not file any 10 || opposition to Plaintiff's Motion. Accordingly, the Court will VACATE the hearing date 11 GRANT Plaintiff's Motion. See Local Rule 7-12. It is HEREBY ORDERED that this 12 || matter be remanded back to the Superior Court for the State of California, County of Los 13 || Angeles, for further proceedings. 14 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. 16 17 || DATED: 5/13/25 Fa V Alon 18 Lap HMA VALENZUELA 19 TB 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28