Aesthetic Management Partners LLC v. Projected Growth Consulting LLC

1 FILED IN THE U.S. DISTRICT COURT 2 EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON Mar 08, 2024 4 SEAN F. MCAVOY, CLERK 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AESTHETIC MANAGEMENT PARTNERS, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, No. 2:23-CV-00361-SAB 11 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART 13 v. PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO REMAND; REMANDING CASE TO SPOKANE COUNTY PROJECTED GROWTH CONSULTING, 15 SUPERIOR COURT AND LLC, a Washington limited liability CLOSING FILE company; PROJECTED GROWTH CONSULTING, LLC, a Florida limited liability company; and KELLY SMITH, an individual, ECF NO. 7 Defendants.

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand, ECF No. 7. Plaintiff is represented by Stephen Willey. Defendant is represented by Aric Jarrett. The motion was heard without oral argument.

Defendant removed the case based on diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Plaintiff seeks remand based on the amount in controversy requirement while claiming it “does not contest diversity of citizenship.” ECF No. 7 at 2. After filing of the motion, Plaintiff filed a corporate disclosure statement reflecting the membership of the LLC Plaintiff indicating that numerous members are citizens of Washington and Florida. ECF No. 10. The citizenship of Plaintiff's membership was not evident in the Complaint, Notice of Removal, or Motion to Remand. See ECF Nos. 1, 7. Defendant’s response admits that it is now evident that complete diversity does not exist and remand is warranted. See ECF No. 13; Johnson v. 5|| Colombia 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.’’).

8 Plaintiff requests attorney’s fees and costs related to the motion to remand.

9)| See ECF No. 7 at 7-8; 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) (“An order remanding the case may require payment of just costs and any actual expenses, including attorney fees, 11||incurred as a result of the removal.”). Plaintiff is not entitled to an award of fees and costs as it had the ability to avoid motion practice entirely had it disclosed 13|| citizenship of its members sooner.

14 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 15 1. Plaintiff's Motion to Remand, ECF No. 7, is GRANTED IN PART, 16|and DENIED IN PART.

17 2. The above-captioned matter is REMANDED to the Spokane County 18|| Superior Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) for lack of jurisdiction.

19 IT IS SO ORDERED. The District Court Clerk is hereby directed to enter this Order, provide copies to counsel, notify the clerk of the Spokane County 21|| Superior Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c), and CLOSE THE FILE.

22 DATED this 8th day of March 2024.

Souler Fectoarn 27 Stanley A. Bastian 28 United States District Judge AnnrTn 4