United States District Court for the Central District of California, 2026

Kelly Sinclair et al v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC et al

Kelly Sinclair et al v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC et al
United States District Court for the Central District of California · Decided January 22, 2026
Kelly Sinclair et al v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC et al

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Case No.: 2:25-cv-09887-AB-JC Date: January 22, 2026

Title: Kelly Sinclair et al v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC et al

Present: The Honorable ANDRÉ BIROTTE JR., United States District Judge Evelyn Chun N/A Deputy Clerk Court Reporter

Attorney(s) Present for Plaintiff(s): Attorney(s) Present for Defendant(s): None Appearing None Appearing

Proceedings: [In Chambers] ORDER REMANDING ACTION TO STATE COURT The Court has reviewed the Defendants’ Amended Notice of Removal (“Am. NOR,” Dkt. No. 17), filed in response to this Court’s Order to Show Cause (“OSC,” Dkt. No. 15) why the action should not be remanded for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Defendants’ Amended NOR alleges the citizenship of plaintiff Brick House Development, LLC, as if it were a natural person. This is incorrect. The citizenship of a partnership or other unincorporated entity is the citizenship of its members.

See Johnson v. Columbia Props. Anchorage, LP, 437 F.3d 894, 899 (9th Cir. 2006) (“[L]ike a partnership, an LLC is a citizen of every state of which its owners/members are citizens.”) To allege the citizenship of an LLC, “a party must list citizenship of all the members of the limited liability company. . .” Rolling Greens MHP, L.P.v. Comcast SCH Holdings L.L.C., 374 F.3d 1020, 1022 (11th Cir. 2004). Defendants’ Amended NOR does not allege the members of the LLC plaintiff or their citizenship, so Defendants have not alleged the facts necessary to establish the LLC’s citizenship and or subject matter jurisdiction.

The Court concludes that Defendants have not met their burden of establishing subject matter jurisdiction. The Court therefore REMANDS this action to the state court from which it was removed.

SO ORDERED.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.