JS-6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Case No. CV 20-2502 PA (JPRx) Date March 19, 2020 Title Emi Saito v. FCA US LLC, et al.

Present: The Honorable PERCY ANDERSON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE T. Jackson Not Reported N/A Deputy Clerk Court Reporter Tape No. Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs: Attorneys Present for Defendants: None None Proceedings: IN CHAMBERS

Before the Court is a Notice of Removal filed by defendant FCA US LLC (“Removing Defendant’). Removing Defendant asserts that this Court has jurisdiction over the action brought against it and codefendant Cerritos Dodge Chrysler Jeep (“Cerritos Dodge”) by plaintiff Emi Saito (“Plaintiff”) based on the Court’s diversity jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C.§ 1332. Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, having subject matter jurisdiction only over matters authorized by the Constitution and Congress. See, e.g., Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co.,

,

,

(1994). A suit filed in state court may be removed to federal court if the federal court would have had original jurisdiction over the suit.

(a). A removed action must be remanded to state court if the federal court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C.§ 1447(c). “The burden of establishing federal jurisdiction is on the party seeking removal, and the removal statute is strictly construed against removal jurisdiction.” Prize Frize, Inc. v. Matrix (U.S.) Inc.,

(9th Cir. 1999). “Federal jurisdiction must be rejected if there is any doubt as to the right of removal in the first instance.” Gaus v. Miles, Inc.,

(9th Cir. 1992). In attempting to invoke this Court’s diversity jurisdiction, Removing Defendant must prove that there is complete diversity of citizenship between the parties and that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.

. To establish citizenship for diversity purposes, a natural person must be a citizen of the United States and be domiciled in a particular state. Kantor v. Wellesley Galleries, Ltd.,

(9th Cir. 1983). Persons are domiciled in the places they reside with the intent to remain or to which they intend to return. See Kanter v. Warner-Lambert Co.,

(9th Cir. 2001). For the purposes of diversity jurisdiction, a corporation 1s a citizen of any state where it is incorporated and of the state where it has its principal place of business.

(c); see also Indus. Tectonics, Inc. v. Aero Alloy,

(9th Cir. 1990). The citizenship of an LLC is the citizenship of its members. See Johnson v. Columbia Props. Anchorage, LP,

(9th Cir. 2006)

JS-6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Case No. CV 20-2502 PA (JPRx) Date March 19, 2020 Title Emi Saito v. FCA US LLC, et al. (“[L]ike a partnership, an LLC is a citizen of every state of which its owners/members are citizens.”’). The Notice of Removal alleges that Removing Defendant “is, and was at the time Plaintiff commenced this action, a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Delaware with its principal place of business in Michigan. This Court can take judicial notice of these facts. (See Excerpt from FCA’s 2014 Form 10-K filing, Exhibit L to Hernandez Decl.,{.. .).” (Notice of Removal {| 28.) As a limited liability company, Removing Defendant’s citizenship is determined by the citizenship of its members, which Removing Defendant has not alleged. Specifically, the Notice of Removal alleges Removing Defendant’s citizenship as if it were a corporation, rather than as an LLC. As a result, Removing Defendant has not satisfactorily alleged its own citizenship. “Absent unusual circumstances, a party seeking to invoke diversity jurisdiction should be able to allege affirmatively the actual citizenship of the relevant parties.” Kanter,

. Moreover, a defendant is presumed to know the facts surrounding its own citizenship. See, e.g., Leon v. Gordon Trucking, Inc.,

(C.D. Cal. 2014); Cretian v. Job1USA, Inc., No. 09-CV-770-ST,

, at *1 (D. Or. Dec. 11, 2009) (“Defendant is presumed to know its own citizenship; indeed it is in the best position to know it for purposes of removal.”). By failing to allege its members’ citizenship, Removing Defendant has failed to establish its citizenship and, therefore, this Court’s diversity jurisdiction. For the foregoing reasons, Defendant has failed to satisfy its burden of showing that diversity jurisdiction exists over this action. Accordingly, this action is hereby remanded to Los Angeles Superior Court, Case No. 20STCV05387, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See

(c). IT IS SO ORDERED.