1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ALI NIKBAKHT, Case No.: 3:23-cv-01336-RBM-JLB

12 Plaintiff, ORDER REMANDING CASE TO 13 v. SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF 14 LMKBK LOGISTICS, LLC, et al., ORANGE 15 Defendants. 16 17 On May 25, 2023, Plaintiff Ali Nikbakht (“Plaintiff”) commenced this action in the 18 Superior Court of the State of California, County of Orange. See Nikbakht v. LMKBK 19 Logistics, LLC, et al., Case No. 30-2023-01327551-CU-WT-WJC. (Doc. 1 at 6–25.1) On 20 July 21, 2023, Defendant LMKBK Logistics, LLC (“Defendant LMKBK”) submitted a 21 notice of removal pursuant to

, 1441 and 1446, removing the action to 22 the United States District Court for the Southern District of California (“Notice of 23 Removal”). (Doc. 1.) In its Notice of Removal, Defendant LMKBK argues this Court has 24 diversity jurisdiction because “[t]he amount in controversy exceeds $75,000” and 25 “complete diversity exists.” (Id. at 2.) Specifically, Defendant LMKBK argues that 26 complete diversity exists because Plaintiff is a resident and domiciled in the State of 27

28 1 California, whereas the limited liability company defendants are each incorporated and 2 have their headquarters/principal place of business outside of the State of California. (Id.) 3 Defendant LMKBK did not allege the citizenship of every member of every limited 4 liability company defendant. (Id.) 5 On September 7, 2023, this Court issued an order to show cause regarding subject 6 matter jurisdiction (“OSC”). (Doc. 3.) In its OSC, the Court found that Defendant 7 LMKBK “failed to properly establish diversity of citizenship” because it “failed to allege 8 the citizenship of each of its owners/members as well as the citizenship of each of 9 [Defendant] Peoplelease LLC’s and [Defendant] JSL Transport, LLC’s owners/members” 10 as required. (Id. at 3 (citing NewGen, LLC v. Safe Cig, LLC,

(9th Cir. 11 2016) (explaining that when pleading diversity jurisdiction with respect to a limited 12 liability company, the citizenship of all members must be pled).) The Court also found 13 that “the Notice of Removal…fails to establish it is more likely than not that the amount in 14 controversy exceeds $75,000.” (Id. at 4.) Finally, the Court noted that “this action was 15 originally filed in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Orange” and that 16 “the proper district in which to file a notice of removal was the United States District Court 17 for the Central District of California, rather than the Southern District of California.” (Id. 18 at 1, n. 1.) 19 On September 21, 2023, Defendant LMKBK responded to this Court’s OSC. (Doc. 20 4.) Defendant LMKBK contends that “[a]t the time Defendant removed this action to 21 Federal Court, Defendant has a good faith determination that diversity jurisdiction was 22 appropriate” but that Defendant LMKBK has been unable to determine the identity of all 23 members of the limited liability company defendants. (Id. at 1–2.) Defendant LMKBK 24 also requests that the court take judicial notice of various jury verdicts, judgments, and 25 settlements in similar cases demonstrating that the amount in controversy in this case 26 exceeds $75,000. (Id. at 2.) Nevertheless, Defendant LMKBK indicated that it does not 27 oppose the remand of this case to the Superior Court of the State California, County of 28 Orange. (Id. at 1, 3.) 1 Because Defendant LMKBK has been unable to determine the identity of every 2 ||member of the limited liability company defendants for purposes of evaluating diversity 3 jurisdiction and does not oppose the Court’s the remand of this case to state court, the Court 4 ||ORDERS that the present case be REMANDED to the Superior Court of the State of 5 || California, County of Orange. The Court need not resolve Defendant LMKBK’s request 6 || for judicial notice of the jury verdicts, judgments, and settlements attached to its response 7 the Court’s OSC. (Doc. 4.) 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. 9 ||DATE: October 31, 2023 Fath esis, Mf itrggys HON. RUTH BERMUDEZ MONTENEGRO UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28