2

3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

5 * * *

6 PARK LANE-RENO PARTNERS, LLC, Case No. 3:20-cv-00596-MMD-CLB

7 Plaintiffs, ORDER v. 8 SYUFY ENTERPRISES, 9 Defendants. 10 11 12 I. SUMMARY 13 The Court issued an order to show cause why this action should not be remanded 14 for lack of subject matter jurisdiction on October 23, 2020. (ECF No. 7 (“OSC”).) The Court 15 has reviewed Defendant’s response (ECF No. 8). Because Defendant concedes that 16 diversity cannot be satisfied, and as further explained below, the Court will remand this 17 action. Further, the Court will deny Plaintiff’s emergency motion to remand (ECF No. 9) as 18 moot. 19 II. BACKGROUND 20 On October 22, 2020, Defendant (a limited partnership) filed a petition for removal 21 based on diversity jurisdiction, contending that complete diversity exists because “Plaintiff 22 is a Delaware limited liability company” and Defendant “is a citizen of the State of 23 California.” (ECF No. 1 at 2-3.) But neither the petition for removal nor the Complaint 24 specified the citizenship of each member of Plaintiff’s LLC or Defendant’s LP. (Id.; see 25 also ECF No. 1-1 at 2-3.) Thus, the Court noted that Defendant failed to demonstrate 26 complete diversity and permitted Defendant to supplement its statement regarding 27 removal with a document identifying the citizenship of each member of Plaintiff Park Lane- 28 Reno Partners, LLC and Defendant Syufy Enterprises, LP. (ECF No. 7.) 2 of domicile, and therefore seeks a continuance to conduct discovery to support its 3 response or asks the Court to remand without prejudice. (ECF No. 8 at 1-2). In particular, 4 Defendant’s response includes what it “believes” to be the parties’ citizenship, in hopes of 5 further discovery to support its response. (Id. at 2-3.) Defendant asserts that Plaintiff Park 6 Lane-Reno Partners, LLC’s members are Park Lane Associates, LLC (a Nevada LLC) and 7 Lyon Housing LXVII, LLC (a Delaware LLC). (ECF No. 8 at 2-3.) Park Lane Associates, 8 LLC’s sole member is Reno Land, Inc. (a Nevada corporation domiciled in Nevada). (Id. 9 at 3). Lyon Housing LXVII, LLC’s members are NCA-D Reno, LLC (a Delaware LLC) and 10 FSWL VI, LLC (a Delaware LLC). (Id.) NCA-D Reno, LLC’s only member is NCA 11 Developments, LLC (a California LLC). (Id.) NCA Developments, LLC’s only member is 12 Newport Capital Advisors, LLC (a Delaware LLC) with its only manager domiciled in either 13 Texas, California, or Utah. (Id.) FSWL VI, LLC members are two individuals, one likely 14 domiciled in California. (Id.) Defendant further alleges that Syufy Enterprises, LP includes 15 172 limited partners that are all family trusts, with the two trustees domiciled in California. 16 (Id.) 17 Then, on October 30, 2020, Petitioner filed an emergency motion to remand this 18 case to state court. (ECF No. 9). 19 III. LEGAL STANDARD 20 Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, having subject-matter jurisdiction 21 only over matters authorized by the Constitution and Congress. U.S. Const. art. III, § 2, cl. 22 1; see also e.g., Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am.,

(1994). A 23 suit filed in state court may be removed to federal court if the federal court would have had 24 original jurisdiction over the suit at commencement of the action. See

(a). 25 However, courts strictly construe the removal statute against removal jurisdiction, and 26 “[f]ederal jurisdiction must be rejected if there is any doubt as to the right of removal in the 27 first instance.” Gaus v. Miles, Inc.,

(9th Cir. 1992) (emphasis added). 28 /// 2 1332(a), the party asserting jurisdiction must show: (1) complete diversity of citizenship 3 among opposing parties and (2) an amount in controversy exceeding $75,000. 28 U.S.C. 4 § 1332(a). Complete diversity requires no plaintiff have the same citizenship as any 5 defendant. See id. The removing party “bears the burden of proof” and must allege facts 6 sufficient to establish complete diversity. Kanter v. Warner-Lambert Co.,

, 7 857-58 (9th Cir. 2001). For purposes of determining citizenship, a corporation is a citizen 8 of “every State and foreign state by which it has been incorporated and of the State or 9 foreign state where it has its principal place of business.”

(c)(1). Unlike a 10 corporation but “like a partnership, an LLC is a citizen of every state of which its 11 owners/members are citizens.” Johnson v. Columbia Props. Anchorage, LP,

, 12 899 (9th Cir. 2006). A trust “has the citizenship of its trustee or trustees.”

. Finally, 13 a natural person’s citizenship is “determined by her state of domicile . . . [or] her permanent 14 home, where she resides with the intention to remain or to which she intends to return.” 15 Kanter,

. 16 IV. DISCUSSION 17 Defendant concedes that it “cannot determine the citizenship and or domicile of 18 Plaintiff’s multiple members.” (ECF No. 8 at 3.) But as mentioned, in removal actions, the 19 removing party “bears the burden of proof” and must allege facts sufficient to establish 20 complete diversity. Kanter,

. For the purposes of establishing 21 citizenship, “like a partnership, an LLC is a citizen of every state of which its 22 owners/members are citizens.” Johnson,

. And a trust “has the citizenship 23 of its trustee or trustees.”

. Thus, as the removing party, Defendant has failed to 24 meet its burden of proof by conceding that it cannot determine the citizenship of individual 25 members necessary to show complete diversity. 26 Even after Defendant concedes that it cannot establish the diversity of citizenship 27 requirement, it provides information in its response to the OSC as to what it “believes the 28 parties’ citizenship or domicile” to be. (ECF No. 8 at 1-2.) But even if the Court were to 2 establish complete diversity. As discussed above, Plaintiff Park Lane-Reno Partners, LLC, 3 has two members, both of whom are LLC’s with additional members that must be traced 4 to determine citizenship. When tracing members, Defendant states it appears that Plaintiff 5 has managers/members likely domiciled in California.1 (Id.) Defendant also alleges that it, 6 Syufy Enterprises, LP, is a California limited partnership made up of 172 limited partners 7 that are all family trusts with the trustees domiciled in California. (Id.) Thus, the parties are 8 not completely diverse—because parties on both sides are domiciled in California. 9 Defendant’s argument is therefore thoroughly unpersuasive. 10 Given Defendant’s concession and failure to demonstrate complete diversity, the 11 Court lacks jurisdiction over this case. Without jurisdiction, this Court cannot order 12 discovery as Defendant requests. In sum, Defendant failed to satisfactorily respond to the 13 OSC, instead conceding it failed to meet its burden to establish complete diversity between 14 the parties. (ECF No. 8.) Accordingly, the Court will remand this action for lack of subject 15 matter jurisdiction. The Court will also deny Plaintiff’s pending emergency motion to 16 remand as moot. 17 V. CONCLUSION 18 The Court notes that the parties made several arguments and cited to several cases 19 not discussed above. The Court has reviewed these arguments and cases and determines 20 that they do not warrant discussion as they do not affect the outcome of the issues before 21 the Court. 22 It is therefore ordered that this action is remanded because the Court lacks subject 23 matter jurisdiction. 24 /// 25 /// 26 27 1Newport Capital Advisors, LLC’s only manager is domiciled in either Texas, 28 California, or Utah. (ECF No. 8 at 3.) And FSWL VI, LLC’s members are two individuals, one likely domiciled in California. (Id.) 1 It is further ordered that Plaintiffs emergency motion to remand (ECF No. 9) is 2 || denied as moot. 3 The Clerk of Court is instructed to close this case. 4 DATED THIS 3 Day of November 2020.

6 Lf MIRANDA M. DU 7 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28