HSM Holdings, LLC v. Mantu I.M. Mobile LTD.
- Jon Tigar
- 4:19-cv-04391
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In HSM Holdings v. Mantu I.M. Mobile, Judge Tigar ordered a jurisdictional response and vacated a motion-to-dismiss hearing.
Defendant Joseph Cayre must explain why the case should remain in federal court. HSM Holdings, LLC may file a response after Cayre’s filing. The defendants’ scheduled motion-to-dismiss hearing was vacated.
What happened
HSM Holdings, LLC v. Mantu I.M. Mobile LTD. came to federal court after Defendant Joseph Cayre removed it from state court based on diversity jurisdiction. The removal notice described HSM as a Delaware corporation, while HSM’s state-court complaint described it as a Delaware limited liability company.
The court explained that an LLC’s citizenship depends on the citizenship of all its members. HSM disclosed that it is entirely owned by Sotech LLC, but the record did not identify Sotech’s members or their citizenship. The court therefore could not determine HSM’s citizenship or whether diversity jurisdiction existed.
Judge Jon S. Tigar ordered Cayre to explain within 14 days why the case should not be sent back to state court for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. HSM may respond within seven days after Cayre’s filing, and the court vacated the scheduled hearing on the defendants’ motion to dismiss.
The detailed version
- HSM Holdings, LLC v. Mantu I.M. Mobile LTD. · No. 4:19-cv-04391
- Jon Tigar
- Nov. 25, 2019
Background
Defendant Joseph Cayre removed the case from state court, asserting federal diversity jurisdiction. The removal notice stated that HSM Holdings, LLC was a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in California. HSM’s state-court complaint instead alleged that HSM was a Delaware limited liability company with its principal place of business in Alameda County, California.
Jurisdictional issue
The court explained that a limited liability company is a citizen of every state where its members are citizens. HSM’s corporate disclosure statement said that Sotech LLC, described as a California LLC, owned 100% of HSM and was its sole and managing member. But the record did not identify Sotech’s members or their citizenship. Because the citizenship of HSM therefore remained unknown, the court found that Cayre had not yet met his burden of establishing that removal was proper.
Order
The court ordered Cayre to show cause in writing within 14 days of the order why the case should not be remanded, or sent back to state court, for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. HSM could file a response within seven days after Cayre’s filing. The court also vacated the December 4, 2019 hearing on the defendants’ motion to dismiss. The opinion did not decide the motion to dismiss or the merits of the underlying dispute.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.