Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Leon v. Aurora Loan Services

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT PRIORITY SEND CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


December 15, 2009

ED DE LEON
v.
AURORA LOAN SERVICES, ET AL.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Honorable John F. Walter, United States District Judge

CIVIL MINUTES -- GENERAL

PROCEEDINGS (IN CHAMBERS): ORDER REMANDING ACTION TO LOS ANGELES COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT

On October 7, 2009, Plaintiff Ed De Leon ("Plaintiff") filed a Complaint in Los Angeles County Superior Court. On November 16, 2009, Defendant Aurora Loan Services ("Defendant") filed a Notice of Removal of Action Under 28 U.S.C. Section 1441(a) ("Notice of Removal"), alleging that the Court had subject matter jurisdiction over the action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332.

Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, having subject matter jurisdiction only over matters authorized by the Constitution and Congress. See Bender v. Williamsport Area School District, 475 U.S. 534, 541 (1986). "Because of the Congressional purpose to restrict the jurisdiction of the federal courts on removal, the statute is strictly construed, and federal jurisdiction must be rejected if there is any doubt as to the right of removal in the first instance." Duncan v. Stuetzle, 76 F.3d 1480, 1485 (9th Cir. 1996) (citations and quotations omitted). There is a strong presumption that the Court is without jurisdiction unless the contrary affirmatively appears. See Fifty Associates v. Prudential Insurance Company of America, 446 F.2d 1187, 1190 (9th Cir. 1990). As the party invoking federal jurisdiction, Defendant bears the burden of demonstrating that removal is proper. See, e.g., Gaus v. Miles, 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992); Emrich v. Touche Ross & Co., 846 F.2d 1190, 1195 (9th Cir. 1988).

The basic requirement for jurisdiction in diversity cases is that all plaintiffs be of different citizenship than all defendants. See Strawbridge v. Curtiss, 7 U.S. 267 (1806); see also Munoz v. Small Business Administration, 644 F.2d 1361, 1365 (9th Cir. 1981) (noting that "[d]iversity jurisdiction requires that the plaintiffs and each defendant be citizens of different states").

To establish the citizenship of a limited liability company, Defendant must, at a minimum, allege the citizenship of all members of the limited liability company. See, e.g., Johnson v. Columbia Properties 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."); Rolling Greens MHP, L.P. v. Comcast SCH Holdings L.L.C., 374 F.3d 1020, 1022 (11th Cir. 2004) (defendant failed to carry its burden of establishing diversity of citizenship where its notice of removal did not list the citizenship of all the members of a limited liability company). Defendant has failed to allege the citizenship of any of its members.

Because Defendant has failed to establish that this Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action, the Court hereby REMANDS this action to Los Angeles County Superior Court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20091215

© 1992-2009 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.