DISCUSSION

The court’s review of the NOR and the attached Complaint makes clear that this court does not have subject matter jurisdiction over the instant matter. In other words, plaintiff could not have originally brought this action in federal court, as plaintiff does not competently allege facts supplying diversity jurisdiction.2 Therefore, removal was improper. See 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a); Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392, 107 S.Ct. 2425, 2429 (1987) (“Only state-court actions that originally could have been filed in federal court may be removed to federal court by the defendant.”). When federal subject matter jurisdiction is predicated on diversity of citizenship, complete diversity must exist between the opposing parties, and the amount in controversy must exceed $75,000. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332;3 Caterpillar Inc. v. Lewis, 519 U.S. 61, 68, 117 S.Ct. 467, 472 (1996) (stating that the diversity jurisdiction statute “applies only to cases in which the citizenship of each plaintiff is diverse from the citizenship of each defendant”). Defendants bear the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy meets the jurisdictional threshold. See Valdez v. Allstate Ins. Co., 372 F.3d 1115, 1117 (9th Cir. 2004); Matheson v. Progressive Specialty Ins. Co., 319 F.3d 1089, 1090 (9th Cir. 2003) (per curiam) (“Where it is not facially evident from the complaint that more than $75,000 is in controversy, the removing party must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the amount in controversy meets the jurisdictional threshold. Where doubt regarding the right to removal exists, a case should be remanded to state court.”) (footnote omitted). Here, there is no basis for diversity jurisdiction because defendants have failed to show that the parties are diverse and that the amount in controversy exceeds the diversity jurisdiction threshold of $75,000. (See, generally, Dkt. 1, NOR). With respect to diversity of citizenship, defendants contend that complete diversity exists because plaintiff is a citizen of California, (see 1 An “antiremoval presumption” does not exist in cases removed pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act (“CAFA”), 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d). See Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co., LLC v. Owens, 574 U.S. 81, 89, 135 S.Ct. 547, 554 (2014). 2 Defendants seek only to invoke the court’s diversity jurisdiction. (See, generally, Dkt. 1,

NOR).

3 In relevant part, 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) provides that a district court has diversity jurisdiction

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Case No. CV 20-11258 FMO (AFMx) Date January 7, 2021 Title Shurla Cayer Cloud v. DePuy Synthes, Inc., et al. id. at ¶ 8a), and defendants are not. (See id. at ¶¶ 8b-f).

Limited liability companies (“LLCs”) are treated like partnerships rather than corporations for the purpose of determining citizenship, and are deemed “a citizen of every state of which its owners/members are citizens.” Johnson v. Columbia Props. Anchorage, LP, 437 F.3d 894, 899 (9th Cir. 2006); see Grupo Dataflux v. Atlas Global Grp., L.P., 541 U.S. 567, 569, 124 S.Ct. 1920, 1923 (2004) (“[A] partnership . . . is a citizen of each State or foreign country of which any of its partners is a citizen.”). “There is no such thing as ‘a [state name] limited partnership’ for purposes of . . . diversity jurisdiction. There are only partners, each of which has one or more citizenships.” Hart v. Terminex Int’l, 336 F.3d 541, 544 (7th Cir. 2003) (internal quotation marks omitted). Moreover, “[a]n LLC’s principal place of business [or] state of organization is irrelevant” for purposes of diversity jurisdiction. See Buschman v. Anesthesia Business Consultants LLC, 42 F.Supp.3d 1244, 1248 (N.D. Cal. 2014); Tele Munchen Fernseh GMBH & Co Produktionsgesellschaft v. Alliance Atlantis Int’l Distribution, LLC, 2013 WL 6055328, *4 (C.D. Cal. 2013) (“As a limited liability company, [defendant]’s principal place of business is irrelevant for purposes of diversity jurisdiction.”). If a member of an LLC is a corporation, then the state of that member’s incorporation and its principal place of business must be shown. Defendants contend that Synthes, an LLC, “is incorporated in Delaware with its principal place of business in Indiana and is therefore considered a citizen of Indiana for purposes of diversity jurisdiction.” (Dkt. 1, NOR at ¶ 8d). However, defendants improperly rely on the standard applicable to corporations despite the fact that Synthes is a limited liability company. (See id.). In short, they have failed to show that complete diversity of the parties exists. With respect to the amount in controversy, the amount of damages plaintiff seeks cannot be determined from the Complaint, as the Complaint does not set forth a specific amount, (see, generally, Dkt. 1-2, Exh. A, Complaint), and defendants do not point to any such claim or request for relief. (See, generally, Dkt. 1, NOR). Indeed, defendants do not even attempt to show that the amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional threshold, and appear instead to rely solely on plaintiff’s claims as proof, ipso facto, that the amount plaintiff seeks would meet the amount in controversy requirement. (See id. at ¶¶ 13-15). In other words, defendants did not satisfy their burden of setting forth facts supporting their assertion that the amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional threshold. See 28 U.S.C. 1332(a); Gaus, 980 F.2d at 567 (remanding for lack of diversity jurisdiction where defendant “offered no facts whatsoever. . . . [to] overcome[ ] the strong presumption against removal jurisdiction, [and did not] satisf[y] [defendant’s] burden of setting forth . . . the underlying facts supporting its assertion that the amount in controversy exceeds [$75,000].”) (internal quotation marks omitted) (emphasis in original). In sum, given that any doubt regarding the existence of subject matter jurisdiction must be resolved in favor of remanding the action, see Gaus, 980 F.2d at 566, the court is not persuaded, under the circumstances here, that defendants have met their burden of showing that the parties

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Case No. CV 20-11258 FMO (AFMx) Date January 7, 2021 Title Shurla Cayer Cloud v. DePuy Synthes, Inc., et al. evident from the complaint that more than $75,000 is in controversy, the removing party must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the amount in controversy meets the jurisdictional threshold. Where doubt regarding the right to removal exists, a case should be remanded to state court.”) (footnote omitted); Valdez, 372 F.3d at 1117 (same). This order is not intended for publication. Nor is it intended to be included in or submitted to any online service such as Westlaw or Lexis.

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED that: 1. The above-captioned action shall be remanded to the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). 2. The Clerk shall send a certified copy of this Order to the state court. 3. Any pending motion is denied as moot. Initials of Preparer vdr