Westfield v. Remington Lodging & Hospitality, LLC

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: February 2, 2021
• Docket: 4:20-cv-08956
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 KEITH WESTFIELD, Case No. 20-cv-08956-JSW

8 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 9 v. REGARDING DIVERSITY OF CITIZENSHIP AND VACATING 10 REMINGTON LODGING & HEARING ON MOTION TO REMAND HOSPITALITY, LLC, et al., Re: Dkt. No. 1 11 Defendants.

12 13 On December 15, 2020, Defendants removed this case from the Superior Court of 14 California, County of Contra Costa to the United States District Court for the Northern District of 15 California. In their Notice of Removal, Defendants assert that this Court has diversity jurisdiction 16 over the action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) and that removal is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 17 1441(b). (Dkt. No. 1, Not. of Removal ¶ 5.) Defendants allege that Plaintiff is a California 18 citizen. (Id. ¶ 6.) Defendants also allege that: Remington Lodging & Hospitality, LLC, “is a 19 limited liability company formed under the laws of the State of Delaware, having its principal 20 place of business in the State of Texas”; Ashford Walnut Creek LP “is a limited partnership 21 formed under the laws of the State of Delaware, having its principal place of business in the State 22 of Texas”; and Ashford TRS Walnut Creek, LLC, “is a limited liability company formed under the 23 laws of the State of Delaware, having its principal place of business in the State of Texas.” (Id.) 24 Under Ninth Circuit law, “an LLC is a citizen of every state of which its owners/members 25 are citizens.” Johnson v. Columbia Props. Anchorage, LP, 437 F.3d 894, 899 (9th Cir. 2006). 26 Similarly, the citizenship of a limited partnership “depends on the citizenship of ‘all the 27 members.’” Carden v. Arkoma Assocs., 494 U.S. 185, 195 (1990) (quoting Chapman v. Barney, 1 companies and a limited partnership in the Notice of Removal, they have not included information 2 about the citizenship of their owners and members. See, e.g., Hale v. MasterSoft Int’! Pty., Ltd., 3 93 F. Supp. 2d 1108, 1112 (D. Colo. 2000) (“Other courts . . . have uniformly held that a limited 4 || liability company is a citizen of the states of which its members are citizens, and is not a citizen of 5 || the state in which it was organized unless one of its members is a citizen of that state.”) (collecting 6 cases); see also Nugget Hydroelectric, L.P. v. Pac. Gas & Elec. Co., 981 F.2d 429, 438 (9th Cir. 7 1992) (noting that the party asserting diversity jurisdiction must “specify affirmatively the 8 || citizenship of all relevant parties . .. which in the case of a limited partnership . . . are the 9 || partners’). If any of Defendants’ members are citizens of California, complete diversity would be 10 || lacking. 11 Accordingly, Defendants are HEREBY ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE in writing by no 12 || later than February 9, 2021, why this matter should not be remanded to state court for lack of 5 13 subject matter jurisdiction. 14 It is FURTHER ORDERED that, the Court has considered the parties’ papers regarding 15 Plaintiff’ s motion to remand, relevant legal authority, and the record in this case, and it finds the 16 matter suitable for disposition without oral argument. See N.D. Civ. L.R. 7-1(b). Accordingly, 5 17 the Court HEREBY VACATES the hearing set for March 26, 2021. If the Court is satisfied that it 18 || has jurisdiction over this matter, a written ruling on that motion shall issue in due course. 19 IT ISSO ORDERED. 20 21 || Dated: February 2, 2021 / | / | Nite FFREY S, 23 / Unite /States Dyfrict Judge 24 / 25 26 27 28