Diggs v. Marriott Hotel Services, LLC
- Nathanael Cousins
- 5:24-cv-06977
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Diggs v. Marriott, Judge Cousins ordered Marriott to explain its citizenship and removal timing before deciding whether the case belongs in federal court.
Marriott must provide additional information and explanation about its citizenship and the timing of removal. Ashley Diggs may respond to Marriott’s submission. The order did not finally determine whether the case will remain in federal court.
What happened
In Diggs v. Marriott Hotel Services, LLC, Marriott removed the case from state court based on diversity jurisdiction. The court said Marriott had not provided enough information to establish that jurisdiction or show that removal was timely.
The court ordered Marriott to provide information about the citizenship of each member of its limited liability company. It also ordered Marriott to explain whether Ashley Diggs acted in bad faith by delaying discovery responses to prevent removal. Diggs may file a written response.
Judge Nathanael Cousins did not decide whether federal jurisdiction exists or whether removal was timely. He ordered Marriott to respond by October 23, 2024, and allowed Diggs to respond by November 6, 2024.
The detailed version
- Diggs v. Marriott Hotel Services, LLC · No. 5:24-cv-06977
- Nathanael Cousins
- Oct. 9, 2024
Background
Marriott Hotel Services, LLC filed a notice of removal on October 4, 2024, seeking to move the case from state court to federal court based on diversity jurisdiction. The court explained that diversity jurisdiction generally requires the parties to be citizens of different states and the amount in controversy to exceed $75,000.
Marriott’s notice stated that Ashley Diggs was a citizen of California and that Marriott was incorporated in Delaware and had its principal place of business in Maryland. The court explained, however, that Marriott is an LLC. Unlike a corporation, an LLC is a citizen of every state in which its members are citizens. Because Marriott did not identify the citizenship of each member, the notice did not provide enough information to establish diversity jurisdiction.
Timing of Removal
Diggs filed the state-court complaint on September 14, 2023. Marriott filed its notice of removal more than one year later, on October 4, 2024. Federal law generally bars removal based on diversity jurisdiction more than one year after the case begins unless the court finds that the plaintiff acted in bad faith to prevent removal.
Marriott alleged that Diggs acted in bad faith by failing to respond promptly to discovery that allegedly showed the case was removable. The court stated that Marriott’s allegations of bad faith were conclusory and did not meet the high burden required for such a finding. The court nevertheless ordered Marriott to explain how Diggs’s delay amounted to strategic conduct intended to keep the case in state court until the one-year deadline passed.
Order
The court ordered Marriott to show cause in writing by October 23, 2024, providing information sufficient to establish diversity jurisdiction and explaining whether Diggs acted in bad faith to prevent removal. Diggs may file a written response by November 6, 2024. Judge Nathanael Cousins did not make a final ruling on federal jurisdiction, the timeliness of removal, or whether Diggs acted in bad faith.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.