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.

Financial Consulting and Trading International, Inc. v. Frederick P.Wich

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


July 12, 2011

FINANCIAL CONSULTING AND TRADING INTERNATIONAL, INC.
v.
FREDERICK P.WICH, ET AL.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Dale S. Fischer, United States District Judge

MEMORANDUM

Present: The Honorable DALE S. FISCHER, United States District Judge

Debra Plato Not Present Deputy Clerk Court Reporter Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs: Attorneys Present for Defendants: Not Present Not Present Proceedings: (In Chambers) Order REMANDING Case to the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles

"Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction" and "possess only that power authorized by [the] Constitution and statute . . . ." Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). A defendant may remove an action if the federal court could exercise subject matter jurisdiction over the action. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). "The removal statute is strictly construed against removal jurisdiction" and "[t]he defendant bears the burden of establishing that removal is proper." Provincial Gov't of Marinduque v. Placer Dome, Inc., 582 F.3d 1083, 1087 (9th Cir. 2009). If a defendant fails to meet its burden of establishing the Court has subject matter jurisdiction, the suit is remanded. 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).

Defendants allege the Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, otherwise known as diversity jurisdiction. (Notice of Removal ¶ 5.) Federal courts have diversity jurisdiction over a civil action if (1) the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000; and (2) the matter is between citizens of different states. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a).

Defendants have not met their burden to establish this matter is between citizens of different states. Defendant F.A.M. Capital, LLC is a limited liability company, and is therefore a citizen of every state of which its members are citizens. Johnson v. Columbia Props. Anchorage, LP, 437 F.3d 894, 899 (9th Cir. 2006). Defendants failed to allege F.A.M. Capital, LLC's citizenship because they did not list its members or their states of citizenship. (Notice of Removal ¶ 8.)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MEMORANDUM

Because Defendants have failed to establish that the Court has subject matter jurisdiction, the Court REMANDS the case to the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20110712

© 1992-2011 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.