Hilley
Hilley v. Maxar Technologies Holdings Inc.
Opinion
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
MICHAEL D. HILLEY, Case No. 24-cv-03143-VC
Plaintiff,
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
v. REMAND
MAXAR TECHNOLOGIES HOLDINGS Re: Dkt. No. 10 INC., et al., Defendants.
Hilley’s Motion to Remand is denied because diversity jurisdiction exists under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). This order assumes the reader’s familiarity with the facts of the case, the legal standard, and the applicable law. Hilley concedes that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 so the only question is whether there is complete diversity of citizenship between the parties. Hilley is a citizen of California. As for the defendants, Maxar Technologies Holdings Inc. and Maxar Technologies Inc. are both incorporated in Delaware and have their principal place of business in Colorado.1 There are also two LLC defendants—Maxar Space LLC and Maxar Space Holdings LLC. Unlike corporations, “an LLC is a citizen of every state of which its owners/members are citizens.” Johnson v. Columbia Properties Anchorage, LP, 437 F.3d 894, 899 (9th Cir. 2006). Maxar Space LLC’s only member is Maxar Space Holdings LLC and Maxar Space Holdings…