William Hancock v. Kulana Partners, LLC

Ninth Circuit

William Hancock v. Kulana Partners, LLC

670 F. App'x 593

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in William Hancock v. Kulana Partners, LLC. Read the opinion of the Court — 692 F. App'x 329 →

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit·Decided November 7, 2016·No. 14-15233·Unpublished

Opinion

MEMORANDUM *

Appellant William Hancock appeals from the district court’s judgment (1) granting Appellee Kulana Partners, LLC’s (Kulana) motion to dismiss, (2) granting Appellee Fidelity National Title and Escrow of Hawaii, Inc.’s (Fidelity) motion for judgment on the pleadings, and (3) denying Hancock’s motion for summary judgment. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

In the jurisdictional allegation of his complaint, Hancock alleges that Kulana is “a citizen of the State of Hawaii.” As a limited liability company, Kulana is “a citizen of every state of which its [ jmembers are citizens,” Johnson v. Columbia Props. Anchorage, LP, 437 F.3d 894, 899 (9th Cir. 2006). Consequently, Hancock was obligated to allege the citizenship of Kulana’s members, and his failure to do so renders the allegation of diversity defective. New-Gen, LLC v. Safe Cig, LLC, 840 F.3d 606, 612 (9th Cir. 2016). This court therefore cannot exercise jurisdiction on that basis.

*594 Hancock’s alternative jurisdictional allegation, that this case is “related to” a bankruptcy case, is also insufficient. Jurisdiction will lie pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1384(b) where the outcome of the action “could alter the debtor’s rights, liabilities, options, or freedom of action (either positively or negatively) and which in any way impacts upon the handling and administration of the bankrupt estate.” Fietz v. Great W. Sav. (In re Fietz), 852 F.2d 455, 457 (9th Cir. 1988), quoting Pacor, Inc. v. Higgins, 743 F.2d 984, 994 (3d Cir. 1984). Hancock’s threadbare allegation that a debtor’s estate “may have an interest in the subject property” is woefully inadequate to permit us to conclude that jurisdiction exists. Accordingly, we must dismiss the appeal.

On remand, the district court should determine whether diversity exists between the parties, whether this case is “related to” a bankruptcy proceeding under section 1334(b), or whether there is any other basis for federal court jurisdiction. This panel retains jurisdiction to hear any future appeals in this matter.

APPEAL DISMISSED.

*

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

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

MEMORANDUM *

Appellant William Hancock appeals from the district court’s judgment (1) granting Appellee Kulana Partners, LLC’s (Kulana) motion to dismiss, (2) granting Appellee Fidelity National Title and Escrow of Hawaii, Inc.’s (Fidelity) motion for judgment on the pleadings, and (3) denying Hancock’s motion for summary judgment. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

In the jurisdictional allegation of his complaint, Hancock alleges that Kulana is “a citizen of the State of Hawaii.” As a limited liability company, Kulana is “a citizen of every state of which its [ jmembers are citizens,” Johnson v. Columbia Props. Anchorage, LP, 437 F.3d 894, 899 (9th Cir. 2006). Consequently, Hancock was obligated to allege the citizenship of Kulana’s members, and his failure to do so renders the allegation of diversity defective. New-Gen, LLC v. Safe Cig, LLC, 840 F.3d 606, 612 (9th Cir. 2016). This court therefore cannot exercise jurisdiction on that basis.

*594 Hancock’s alternative jurisdictional allegation, that this case is “related to” a bankruptcy case, is also insufficient. Jurisdiction will lie pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1384(b) where the outcome of the action “could alter the debtor’s rights, liabilities, options, or freedom of action (either positively or negatively) and which in any way impacts upon the handling and administration of the bankrupt estate.” Fietz v. Great W. Sav. (In re Fietz), 852 F.2d 455, 457 (9th Cir. 1988), quoting Pacor, Inc. v. Higgins, 743 F.2d 984, 994 (3d Cir. 1984). Hancock’s threadbare allegation that a debtor’s estate “may have an interest in the subject property” is woefully inadequate to permit us to conclude that jurisdiction exists. Accordingly, we must dismiss the appeal.

On remand, the district court should determine whether diversity exists between the parties, whether this case is “related to” a bankruptcy proceeding under section 1334(b), or whether there is any other basis for federal court jurisdiction. This panel retains jurisdiction to hear any future appeals in this matter.

APPEAL DISMISSED.

*

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

William Hancock v. Kulana Partners, LLC, 670 F. App'x 593 (9th Cir. 2016).

Pincite

670 F. App'x 593 (William Hancock v. Kulana Partners, LLC) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related