1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9

10 RAVINDRAN ARIKAPUDI, Case No. 23-cv-02453-NC 11 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: 12 CITIZENSHIP OF v. DEFENDANT’S MEMBERS 13 WIPRO VLSI DESIGN SERVICES, LLC, Re: ECF 1 14 Defendant. 15 16 17 Plaintiff Ravindran Arikapudi filed suit against Defendant Wipro VLSI Design 18 Services, LLC (“Wipro VLSI”) and unnamed doe defendants, alleging employment related 19 claims in California state court. ECF 1, Bachert Declaration ¶ 2, Ex. A. Wipro VLSI 20 removed the case to federal court. However, the citizenship of Wipro VLSI, as well as its 21 other corporate members, is unclear. The Court ORDERS Wipro VLSI to file a statement 22 clarifying the citizenship of its corporate members to support its claim to federal 23 jurisdiction. 24 The district court has “a duty to establish subject matter jurisdiction over the 25 removed action sua sponte, whether the parties raised the issue or not. United Investors 26 Life Ins. Co. v. Waddell & Reed Inc., 360 F.3d 960, 967 (9th Cir. 2004). 28 U.S.C. § 27 1441(a) provides that “any civil action brought in a State court of which the district courts 1 appropriate federal district court. Removal may be predicated on diversity jurisdiction. 28 2 U.S.C. § 1441(b). Diversity jurisdiction encompasses “all civil actions where the matter in 3 controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000 . . . and is between . . . citizens of 4 different States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1). “[A]n LLC is a citizen of every state of which 5 its owners/members are citizens.” Johnson v. Columbia Properties Anchorage, LP, 437 6 F.3d 894, 899 (9th Cir. 2006). 7 The removal statute is strictly construed against removal jurisdiction. Sharma v. 8 HSI Asset Loan Obligation Tr. 2007-1 by Deutsche Bank Nat’l Tr. Co., 23 F.4th 1167, 9 1170 (9th Cir. 2022). “Federal jurisdiction must be rejected if there is any doubt as to the 10 right of removal in the first instance.” Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 11 1992). As a consequence of the “strong presumption against removal jurisdiction,” the 12 defendant always bears the burden of showing removal is proper. Id. The failure to 13 delineate the citizenship of a defendant’s partners and members does not satisfy the party’s 14 burden of showing complete diversity. See Lindley Contours, LLC v. AABB Fitness 15 Holdings, Inc., 414 F. App’x 62, 64 (9th Cir. 2011). 16 Wipro VLSI appears to be only one component of a larger corporate hierarchy. 17 According to its removal papers, “[Wipro VLSI]’s sole member is Wipro IT Services, 18 LLC. The sole member of Wipro IT Services, LLC is Wipro, LLC. The sole member of 19 Wipro, LLC is Wipro Limited.” ECF 1 at 3. Wipro Limited is incorporated and maintains 20 its principal place of business in the Foreign Nation of India. Id. Like the transitive 21 property, Wipro VLSI concludes that that “Defendant is a citizen of the Foreign Nation of 22 India.” Id. However, the citizenship of one of an LLC’s members does not conclusively 23 establish the citizenship of all preceding entities nor does it foreclose the possibility that 24 the primary entity maintains a different citizenship than its members. Even if it did, Wipro 25 VLSI still fails to allege the citizenship of either Wipro IT Services, LLC or Wipro, LLC. 26 See Lindley, 414 F. App’x at 64 (noting that if the removing defendants had “limited 27 liability corporations as members, the citizenship of each individual member of these 1 || or limited lability corporations, the citizenship of each individual member of those entities 2 || must be alleged — and so on’’) (internal parentheses omitted). Based on these omissions, 3 || the Court cannot discern whether complete diversity exists between the parties. Thus, 4 || Wipro VLSI fails to carry its burden of establishing removal is proper. 5 Accordingly, the Court ORDERS Plaintiff to file a statement in writing detailing the 6 || citizenship of (1) Wipro VLSI; (2) Wipro IT Services, LLC; and (3) Wipro, LLC by June 7 || 19, 2023. If Wipro VLSI fails to comply with this order, the case will be remanded to state 8 || court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. 10 11 Dated: June 5, 2023 h-_———— _

NATHANAEL M. COUSINS

12 United States Magistrate Judge

13

14

15

A 16

o 17

1g

19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28