United States District Court, N.D. California
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO REMAND RE: DKT. NO. 6 ORDER
DISMISSING CASE FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION AND STRIKING
DOCUMENT RE: DKT. NOS. 33-5
HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
before the Court is Plaintiff California Union Square
L.P.'s motion to remand. Case No. 17-cv-1765, Dkt. No. 6.
Having read the parties' papers and carefully considered
their arguments, the Court finds the matter appropriate for
decision without oral argument, see Civil L.R.
7-1(b), and GRANTS Plaintiff's motion for the reasons
as otherwise expressly provided by Act of Congress, any civil
action brought in a State court of which the district courts
of the United States have original jurisdiction, may be
removed” to federal court. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a).
The Ninth Circuit has held that “[f]ederal jurisdiction
must be rejected if there is any doubt as to the right of
removal in the first instance.” Gaus v. Miles,
Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992). Because of this
“strong presumption against removal jurisdiction,
” a defendant “always has the burden of
establishing that removal is proper.” Id.
(internal quotation marks omitted).
U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1) establishes federal jurisdiction
over cases in which there is complete diversity of
citizenship between the parties and the amount in controversy
exceeds $75, 000. “The presence of [a] nondiverse party
automatically destroys original jurisdiction: No party need
assert the defect. No party can waive the defect or consent
to jurisdiction. No court can ignore the defect; rather a
court, noticing the defect, must raise the matter on its
own.” Wisconsin Dept. of Corr. v. Schacht, 524
U.S. 381, 389 (1998). Plaintiff contends that this Court has
no jurisdiction over Case No. 17-cv-1765, and must remand the
case to state court, because complete diversity is lacking.
See Case No. 17-cv-1765, Dkt. No. 6 at 7. The Court
submitted the affidavit of William A. Molinski, an attorney
at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, and
Plaintiff's counsel of record, describing Plaintiff's
corporate structure. Id. Dkt. No. 6-2. Plaintiff is
a limited partnership. See id., Dkt. Nos. 6-2
¶¶ 12, 13, 6-3, Ex. L. Plaintiff's general
partner is California Union Square LLC, a limited liability
company. Id. California Union Square LLC's sole
and managing member is DB Immobilienfonds 13 California L.P.,
a limited partnership. Id. Dkt. Nos. 6-2
¶¶ 12, 14, 6-3, Ex. M. DB Immobilienfonds 13
California L.P.'s general partner is IC Associate LLC, a
limited liability company. Id. Dkt. Nos. 6-2
¶¶ 12, 15, 6-3, Ex. N. IC Associate LLC's sole
and managing member is GSS Holdings (IC Associate), Inc., a
New York corporation with its principal place of business in
New York. Id. Dkt. Nos. 6-2 ¶¶ 12, 16-19,
6-3, Exs. O, P, Q. Because partnerships and limited liability
companies are “citizen[s] of every state of which
[their] owners/members are citizens, ” Plaintiff is a
citizen of New York. Johnson v. Columbia Props.
Anchorage, LP, 437 F.3d 894, 899 (9th Cir. 2006).
Defendant is a limited liability company. See Case
No. 17-cv-1765, Dkt. No. 1 ¶ 10. Its sole member, Saks
Incorporated, is incorporated in Tennessee with its principal
place of business in New York. Id. Defendant is
therefore also a citizen of New York, and thus there is no
Court accordingly GRANTS Plaintiff's motion to remand
Case No. 17-cv-1765. Plaintiff's request for
attorneys' fees and costs incurred as a result of the
removal under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) is DENIED:
Plaintiff's contribution to the confusion surrounding
diversity jurisdiction in this action was substantial, to
include a complete reversal from the position it took
initially in Case No. 16-cv-4043.
Court also DISMISSES Case No. 16-cv-4043 for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction, because complete diversity does not
exist in that case either, for the reasons described
the Court STRIKES Dkt. No. 33-5 in Case No. 16-cv-4043,
because that document contains confidential business
information, trade secrets, and market research. Because the
case is being dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, the Court
finds good cause not to require the refiling of a redacted
version of the document.
ORDERED that Case No. 17-cv-1765 is remanded under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1447(c) to San Francisco County Superior Court. The
Clerk of this Court is directed to remand the case forthwith
and close the case. The Clerk is also directed to close Case
 While the petition in Case No.
16-cv-4043 sought the appointment of an arbitrator under 9
U.S.C. § 5, diversity was cited as the basis for this
Court's jurisdiction. See Case No. 16-cv-4043,
Dkt. No. 1 ¶ 6. Moreover, the Court understands that the
sole issue raised in that case-whether the Court should
appoint an arbitrator-has been rendered entirely ...