Nicole Olivier v. Cody Joseph Williams, et al.

1 WO 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

9 Nicole Olivier, No. CV-25-04289-PHX-JJT 10 Plaintiff, ORDER v. Cody Joseph Williams, et al., 13 Defendants.

15 At issue is Defendants Cody Jospeh Williams and Uphill Farm, LLC’s Notice of Removal (Doc. 1, Not.). The Court has reviewed the Notice of Removal and finds that Defendants have not sufficiently alleged that the Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this matter. The Court will therefore remand this matter to state court.

19 Federal courts may exercise removal jurisdiction over a case only if subject matter jurisdiction exists. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a); Valdez v. Allstate Ins. Co., 372 F.3d 1115, 1116 (9th Cir. 2004). The removing party bears the burden of providing a signed notice of removal that contains a short and plain statement of the grounds for removal, including the Court’s subject matter jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441(a), 1446(a).

24 Here, Defendants assert diversity jurisdiction as the basis for removal. (Not. ¶ 10.)

25 Diversity jurisdiction exists in actions between citizens of different states where the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). As the Court has stated in numerous previous Orders based on a 2006 decision of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, for the purpose of determining diversity of citizenship, “an LLC || 1s citizen of every state of which its owners/members are citizens.” Johnson v. Columbia 2|| Props. Anchorage, LP, 437 F.3d 894, 899 (9th Cir. 2006). Relatedly, if the || owners/members of an LLC are other LLCs, the citizenship of the LLC is every state of 4|| which the owners/members of the owner/member LLCs are citizens.

5 In the present case Defendant Uphill Farm, LLC is an LLC. And yet, for the purpose 6|| of alleging diversity of citizenship, Defendant Uphill Farm, LLC alleges that it “is a || California corporation with its principal place of business in California,” presumably || implying that it is a citizen of California. (Not. 8.) These allegations are legally incorrect 9|| and insufficient to demonstrate the Court’s subject matter jurisdiction over this case. || Accordingly, the Court will remand this case to state court. 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).

11 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED directing the Clerk of Court to remand this case || to Maricopa County Superior Court.

13 Dated this 20th day of November, 2025. CN 14 “wok: Unig State#District Judge _2-