1 2 3 4 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 WHITSON HUNTER, et al., Case No. 21-cv-06316-MMC

8 Plaintiffs, ORDER REMANDING CASE v. 9

10 HINES INTERESTS LP, Defendant. 11

12 13 By order filed August 24, 2021, the Court directed defendant Hines Interests 14 Limited Partnership ("HILP") to show cause why the above-titled action should not be 15 remanded for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, specifically, for lack of diversity between 16 HILP and the two plaintiffs, Whitson Hunter and D'Hante Jackson.1 17 Now before the Court is HILP's "Response to Order to Show Cause Re Diversity 18 Jurisdiction," filed September 8, 2021. Having read and considered the response, the 19 Court rules as follows. 20 In its notice of removal, HILP, a "privately held limited partnership" (see Notice of 21 Removal ¶ 9), asserts that both plaintiffs are citizens of California (see id. ¶ 8). As noted 22 in the Court's order to show cause, however, the notice of removal does not identify the 23 state or states of which HILP is a citizen, as it includes no facts identifying the citizenship 24 of each of its general and limited partners. See Carden v. Arkoma Associates,

(1990) (holding citizenship of limited partnership "depends on the citizenship 26

27 1 On August 16, 2021, HILP removed the case, asserting diversity jurisdiction 1 of all the members") (internal quotation and citation omitted). 2 In its response, HILP asserts its "limited partnership interests are owned by two 3 || privately held limited partnerships, Hines Global Real Estate Holdings LP (‘'HGREH’), a 4 Delaware limited partnership, and Hines Real Estate Limited Partnership (‘'HREH’), a 5 || Texas limited partnership," and that it has one "general partner, Proj Il - Business GP 6 |} LLC (‘Proj Il GP'),” which, in turn, is "owned by HGREH." (See Def.'s Response at 3:3-9.) 7 In short, each of HILP's members/partners is itself a limited partnership or limited liability 8 corporation. 9 HILP has not, however, provided any information as to the citizenship of those 10 || entities. Rather, HILP only asserts that each of its members/partners has its principal 11 place of business in Texas (see id. at 3:10-11), an irrelevant fact for purposes of g 12 || establishing citizenship of a limited partnership. See Carden,

(noting 13 || limited partnership "may not be deemed a 'citizen' under the jurisdiction rule established 14 || for corporations"). Consequently, HILP, having failed to show the citizenship of HILP's 2 15 || general and limited partners, has failed to establish diversity of citizenship. a 16 Accordingly, the above-titled action is hereby REMANDED to the Superior Court of 17 || California, in and for the County of Alameda. 4g IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 20 || Dated: September 15, 2021 (erred □□□□□ MAXINE M. CHESNEY 21 United States District Judge 22 23 24 25 26 27 28