Yamamoto v. Homeowners Financial Group USA, LLC

Opinion

3 BLAINE YAMAMOTO, Case No.: 2:23-cv-01142-APG-BNW

4 Plaintiff Order (1) to Show Cause Why This Action Should Not Be Remanded for Lack of 5 v. Subject Matter Jurisdiction and (2) for Reply Regarding Fraudulent Joinder USA, LLC, et al., 7 Defendants 8

9 Defendant GEICO Insurance Agency, LLC removed this action from state court based on 10 diversity jurisdiction. ECF No. 1. However, GEICO did not identify the citizenship of the 11 members of any of the LLC defendants, including itself. See Johnson v. Columbia Properties 12 Anchorage, LP, 437 F.3d 894, 899 (9th Cir. 2006) (stating that “an LLC is a citizen of every 13 state of which its owners/members are citizens”). GEICO also alluded to defendant Brian 14 Esposito being fraudulently joined but did not explain why his citizenship should be ignored. 15 GEICO did not identify the principal place of business for defendant Mortgage Electronic 16 Registration Systems, Inc. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1) (providing that a corporation is “a citizen 17 of every State and foreign state by which it has been incorporated and of the State or foreign 18 state where it has its principal place of business”). And GEICO made no citizenship allegations 19 regarding defendant Federal National Mortgage Association. I therefore ordered GEICO to 20 show cause why this action should not be remanded for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 21 GEICO’s first response addressed only why it believes Esposito has been fraudulently 22 joined. ECF No. 17. I granted GEICO another opportunity to establish diversity jurisdiction 23 by addressing each of the issues identified above, and I ordered the plaintiff to respond to 2|| the fraudulent joinder argument. ECF No. 18. 3 GEICO’s latest response is still deficient because it does not identify the citizenship of each member of each LLC defendant. Merely stating where an LLC is formed and its principal place of business is insufficient. I will give GEICO one last chance to establish subject matter jurisdiction in this case. Additionally, GEICO must respond to the plaintiff's argument that defendant Esposito was not fraudulently joined. 8 I THEREFORE ORDER that by September 22, 2023, defendant GEICO Insurance Agency, LLC shall show cause in writing why this action should not be remanded to state court 10]| for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Failure to respond by that date will result in remand. 11 DATED this 13th day of September, 2023. 12 OLE 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23