CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Case No. ED CV 21-0664 FMO (KKx) Date May 24, 2021 Title Lorenzo Christopher Sereno, et al. v. FedEx Custom Critical, Inc., et al.

Present: The Honorable Fernando M. Olguin, United States District Judge Vanessa Figueroa None None Deputy Clerk Court Reporter / Recorder Tape No. Attorney Present for Plaintiff: Attorney Present for Defendant: None Present None Present Proceedings: (In Chambers) Order Remanding Action On February 19, 2021, Lorenzo Christopher Sereno (“Sereno”) and Eleanor Hopkins (“Hopkins”) (collectively “plaintiffs”) filed a Complaint in the San Bernardino County Superior Court against FedEx Custom Critical, Inc. (“FedEx”), Ana Quijada (“Quijada”), and A & K Cargo Trail LLC (“A&K”) (collectively “defendants”), asserting a state law negligence claim. (See Dkt. 1, Notice of Removal (“NOR”) at ¶¶ 1-4); (Dkt. 1-1, Complaint at ¶¶ 14-23). On April 14, 2021, defendants removed that action on diversity jurisdiction grounds pursuant to

. (See Dkt. 1, NOR at ¶¶ 7-17). Having reviewed the pleadings, the court hereby remands this action to state court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See

(c). “Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. They possess only that power authorized by Constitution and statute[.]” Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am.,

,

(1994). The courts are presumed to lack jurisdiction unless the contrary appears affirmatively from the record. See DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Cuno,

, 342 n. 3,

, 1861 n. 3 (2006). Federal courts have a duty to examine jurisdiction sua sponte before proceeding to the merits of a case, see Ruhrgas AG v. Marathon Oil Co.,

,

(1999), “even in the absence of a challenge from any party.” Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp.,

,

(2006). “Under the plain terms of § 1441(a), in order properly to remove [an] action pursuant to that provision, [the removing defendant] must demonstrate that original subject-matter jurisdiction lies in the federal courts.” Syngenta Crop Prot., Inc. v. Henson,

,

(2002); Abrego Abrego v. The Dow Chem. Co.,

(9th Cir. 2006) (per curiam) (noting the “longstanding, near-canonical rule that the burden on removal rests with the removing defendant”); Gaus v. Miles, Inc.,

(9th Cir. 1992) (“The strong presumption against removal jurisdiction means that the defendant always has the burden of establishing that removal is proper.”) (internal quotation marks omitted). If there is any doubt regarding the existence of subject matter jurisdiction, the court must resolve those doubts in favor of remanding CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Case No. ED CV 21-0664 FMO (KKx) Date May 24, 2021 Title Lorenzo Christopher Sereno, et al. v. FedEx Custom Critical, Inc., et al. the action to state court.1 See Gaus,

(“Federal jurisdiction must be rejected if there is any doubt as to the right of removal in the first instance.”). Here, the court’s review of the NOR and the attached Complaint makes clear that this court does not have subject matter jurisdiction over the instant matter. In other words, plaintiffs could not have originally brought this action in federal court, as plaintiffs do not competently allege facts supplying diversity jurisdiction.2 Therefore, removal was improper. See

(a); Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams,

,

(1987) (“Only state-court actions that originally could have been filed in federal court may be removed to federal court by the defendant.”). When federal subject matter jurisdiction is predicated on diversity of citizenship, complete diversity must exist between the opposing parties, and the amount in controversy must exceed $75,000. See

;3 Caterpillar Inc. v. Lewis,

,

(1996) (stating that the diversity jurisdiction statute “applies only to cases in which the citizenship of each plaintiff is diverse from the citizenship of each defendant”). Defendants bear the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy meets the jurisdictional threshold. See Valdez v. Allstate Ins. Co.,

(9th Cir. 2004); Matheson v. Progressive Specialty Ins. Co.,

(9th Cir. 2003) (per curiam) (“Where it is not facially evident from the complaint that more than $75,000 is in controversy, the removing party must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the amount in controversy meets the jurisdictional threshold. Where doubt regarding the right to removal exists, a case should be remanded to state court.”) (footnotes omitted). Here, there is no basis for diversity jurisdiction because defendants have failed to show that the parties are diverse and that the amount in controversy exceeds the diversity jurisdiction threshold of $75,000. (See, generally, Dkt. 1, NOR). With respect to diversity of citizenship, defendants contend that complete diversity exists because Sereno is a citizen of Georgia and Pennsylvania, Hopkins is a citizen of Georgia, Fed Ex is a citizen of Ohio, A&K is a citizen of 1 An “antiremoval presumption” does not exist in cases removed pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act (“CAFA”),

(d). See Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co., LLC v. Owens,

, 89,

(2014). 2 Defendants seek only to invoke the court’s diversity jurisdiction. (See, generally, Dkt. 1, NOR at ¶¶ 7-17). Although defendants refer to

, they make no attempt to show that federal question jurisdiction exists. (See, generally,

). 3 In relevant part,

(a) provides that a district court has diversity jurisdiction CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Case No. ED CV 21-0664 FMO (KKx) Date May 24, 2021 Title Lorenzo Christopher Sereno, et al. v. FedEx Custom Critical, Inc., et al. Texas, and Quijada is a citizen of Texas. (Id. at ¶¶ 11-15).

Limited liability companies (“LLCs”) are treated like partnerships rather than corporations for the purpose of determining citizenship, and are deemed “a citizen of every state of which its owners/members are citizens.” Johnson v. Columbia Props. Anchorage, LP,

(9th Cir. 2006); see Grupo Dataflux v. Atlas Global Grp., L.P.,

,

(2004) (“[A] partnership . . . is a citizen of each State or foreign country of which any of its partners is a citizen.”). “There is no such thing as ‘a [state name] limited partnership’ for purposes of . . . diversity jurisdiction. There are only partners, each of which has one or more citizenships.” Hart v. Terminex Int’l,

(7th Cir. 2003) (internal quotation marks omitted). Moreover, “[a]n LLC’s principal place of business [or] state of organization is irrelevant” for purposes of diversity jurisdiction. See Buschman v. Anesthesia Business Consultants LLC,

(N.D. Cal. 2014); Tele Munchen Fernseh GMBH & Co Produktionsgesellschaft v. Alliance Atlantis Int’l Distribution, LLC,

, *4 (C.D. Cal. 2013) (“As a limited liability company, [defendant]’s principal place of business is irrelevant for purposes of diversity jurisdiction.”). If a member of an LLC is a corporation, then the state of that member’s incorporation and its principal place of business must be shown. Defendants allege that A&K “is a Texas limited liability company with its principal place of business located in Texas[,]” and is thus “deemed to be a citizen of the State of Texas.” (Dkt. 1, NOR at ¶ 14). However, defendants improperly rely on the standard applicable to corporations despite the fact that A&K is a limited liability company. (See id.). In short, they have failed to show that complete diversity of the parties exists. In sum, given that any doubt regarding the existence of subject matter jurisdiction must be resolved in favor of remanding the action, see Gaus,

, the court is not persuaded, under the circumstances here, that defendants have met their burden of showing that the parties are diverse. See Matheson,

(“Where doubt regarding the right to removal exists, a case should be remanded to state court.”) (footnote omitted); Valdez,

(same). This order is not intended for publication. Nor is it intended to be included in or submitted to any online service such as Westlaw or Lexis. CONCLUSION Based on the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED that: 1. The above-captioned action shall be remanded to the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Bernardino, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to

(c). CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Case No. ED CV 21-0664 FMO (KKx) Date May 24, 2021 Title Lorenzo Christopher Sereno, et al. v. FedEx Custom Critical, Inc., et al. 2. The Clerk shall send a certified copy of this Order to the state court. Initials of Preparer vdr