United States District Court, C.D. California
Present: The Honorable PERCY ANDERSON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
IN CHAMBERS - COURT ORDER
the Court is a Notice of Removal filed by defendants Canali
U.S.A. Inc. and Canali Trading LLC (together,
“Defendants”). (Docket No. 1.) Defendants assert
that this Court has jurisdiction over the action based on the
Court's diversity jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C.
courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, having subject
matter jurisdiction only over matters authorized by the
Constitution and Congress. See, e.g., Kokkonen
v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 511 U.S. 375, 377, 114 S.Ct.
1673, 1675, 128 L.Ed.2d 391 (1994). A suit filed in state
court may be removed to federal court if the federal court
would have had original jurisdiction over the suit. 28 U.S.C.
§ 1441(a). A removed action must be remanded to state
court if the federal court lacks subject matter jurisdiction.
28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). “The burden of establishing
federal jurisdiction is on the party seeking removal, and the
removal statute is strictly construed against removal
jurisdiction.” Prize Frize, Inc. v. Matrix (U.S.)
Inc., 167 F.3d 1261, 1265 (9th Cir. 1999).
“Federal 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).
attempting to invoke this Court's diversity jurisdiction,
Defendant must prove that there is complete diversity of
citizenship between the parties and that the amount in
controversy exceeds $75, 000. 28 U.S.C. § 1332. To
establish citizenship for diversity purposes, a natural
person must be a citizen of the United States and be
domiciled in a particular state. Kantor v. Wellesley
Galleries, Ltd., 704 F.2d 1088, 1090 (9th Cir. 1983).
Persons are domiciled in the places they reside with the
intent to remain or to which they intend to return. See
Kanter v. Warner-Lambert Co., 265 F.3d 853, 857 (9th
Cir. 2001). For the purposes of diversity jurisdiction, a
corporation is a citizen of any state where it is
incorporated and of the state where it has its principal
place of business. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c); see also
Indus. Tectonics, Inc. v. Aero Alloy, 912 F.2d 1090,
1092 (9th Cir. 1990). The citizenship of an LLC is the
citizenship of its members. See Johnson v. Columbia
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.”).
Notice of Removal alleges that Canali Trading LLC “is a
limited liability company duly organized under the laws of
New York” that “maintain[s] [its] principal place
of business in New, York, ” and that it therefore is a
“citizen of the state of New York, as provided in 28
U.S.C. § 1332(c).” (Notice of Removal ¶ 10;
see Siarhei Decl. ¶ 2, Docket No. 1-2.) As a
limited liability company, Canali Trading LLC's
citizenship is determined by the citizenship of its members,
which Defendants have not alleged. “Absent unusual
circumstances, a party seeking to invoke diversity
jurisdiction should be able to allege affirmatively the
actual citizenship of the relevant parties.”
Kanter, 265 F.3d at 857; Bradford v. Mitchell
Bros. Truck Lines, 217 F.Supp. 525, 527 (N.D. Cal. 1963)
(“A petition [for removal] alleging diversity of
citizenship upon information and belief is
insufficient.”). Moreover, a defendant is presumed to
know the facts surrounding its own citizenship. See,
e.g., Leon v. Gordon Trucking, Inc., 76
F.Supp.3d 1055, 1063 (C.D. Cal. 2014); Cretian v.
Job1USA, Inc., No. 09-CV-770-ST, 2009 WL 4841039, at *1
(D. Or. Dec. 11, 2009) (“Defendant is presumed to know
its own citizenship; indeed it is in the best position to
know it for purposes of removal.”). By failing to
allege Canali Trading LLC's members' citizenship,
Defendants have failed to establish its citizenship.
Defendants thus have not established that this Court has
diversity jurisdiction over this action.
foregoing reasons, Defendants have failed to satisfy their
burden of showing that diversity jurisdiction exists over
this action. Accordingly, this action is hereby remanded to
Los Angeles County Superior Court, Case No. 19STCV17362, for