1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MARIA MANZANO, Case No.: 20cv0063-L-AGS

12 Plaintiff, ORDER REMANDING ACTION TO 13 v. STATE COURT 14 MATHIAS MORGAN MANAGEMENT COMPANY, LLC, et al. 15 Defendants. 16

17

18 Defendants removed this wage and hour action from State court pursuant to 28

and 1441. For the reasons stated below, the action is remanded. 20 "Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. They possess only that power 21 authorized by Constitution or statute, which is not to be expanded by judicial decree. It is 22 to be presumed that a cause lies outside this limited jurisdiction, and the burden of 23 establishing the contrary rests upon the party asserting jurisdiction." Kokkonen v. 24 Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am.,

(1994) (citations omitted). Consistent 25 with the limited jurisdiction of federal courts, the removal statute is strictly construed 26 against removal. Gaus v. Miles, Inc.,

(9th Cir. 1992). The burden of 27 / / / / / 28 1 establishing removal jurisdiction is on the removing party. See Abrego Abrego v. The 2 Dow Chem. Co.,

(9th Cir. 2006). 3 “[A]ny civil action brought in a State court of which the district courts of the 4 United States have original jurisdiction, may be removed . . ..”

(a). 5 Defendants’ notice of removal is based on

. Under section 1332(a), 6 original jurisdiction exists in cases where the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 and 7 the case is "between citizens of different states." To meet the requirement of diversity of 8 citizenship, Defendants must show "complete diversity of citizenship." Caterpillar, Inc. 9 v. Lewis,

(1996). This requirement is met when "the citizenship of each 10 plaintiff is diverse from the citizenship of each defendant."

11 The removing party is required to allege diversity, which includes "alleg[ing] 12 affirmatively the actual citizenship of the relevant parties." Kanter v. Warner-Lambert, 13

(9th Cir. 2001). According to the underlying complaint, Plaintiff is a 14 citizen of California. (Compl. at 2; see also Notice of Removal at 3.) Defendants Ellison 15 and Jill Morgan are citizens of Oregon. (Decl. of Jill Morgan at 2; Notice of Removal at 16 4-5.) Defendant Mathias Morgan Management Company, LLC ("MMMC") is a limited 17 liability company. (Decl. of Jill Morgan at 2; Notice of Removal at 3-4.) For purposes of 18 diversity jurisdiction the citizenship of a limited liability company is determined by 19 examining the citizenship of each of its members. Carden v. Arkoma Assoc.,

(1990); Johnson v. Columbia Properties Anchorage. L.P.,

, 899 21 (9th Cir. 2006). Defendants do not provide any information regarding MMMC's 22 members. (See Decl. of Jill Morgan at 2; Notice of Removal at 3-4.) Accordingly, they 23 have not met their burden to establish MMMC's citizenship, and have not met their 24 burden affirmatively to allege the citizenship of all parties. The notice of removal fails to 25 establish federal jurisdiction. 26 "If at any time before final judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject 27 matter jurisdiction, the case shall be remanded."

(c). This action is 28 / / / / / 1 || therefore remanded to the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San 2 || Diego. 3 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 6 Dated: January 13, 2020 (fee oop 8 H . James Lorenz 9 United States District Judge

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28