Westfield v. Remington Lodging & Hospitality, LLC
- Jeffrey White
- 4:20-cv-08956
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Westfield v. Remington Lodging, Judge White questioned diversity jurisdiction, ordered defendants to explain it, and vacated the remand hearing.
The defendants must provide information supporting federal diversity jurisdiction or explain why the case should be returned to state court. Keith Westfield’s motion to remand remains unresolved, and the scheduled hearing was vacated.
What happened
In Westfield v. Remington Lodging & Hospitality, LLC, the defendants moved the case from California state court to federal court, claiming that the parties were citizens of different states. The defendants identified the states where the business entities were formed and had their main offices, but did not identify the citizenship of their owners or members.
The court explained that an LLC’s citizenship depends on the citizenship of all its owners or members, and a limited partnership’s citizenship depends on all its partners. Because any defendant’s members might be California citizens, the court questioned whether federal subject-matter jurisdiction existed. It ordered the defendants to explain by February 9, 2021, why the case should not be sent back to state court.
The court also decided that the parties’ motion-to-remand papers could be considered without a hearing and vacated the March 26, 2021 hearing. Judge White did not decide the remand motion in this order; he said a written ruling would issue later if the court was satisfied that it had jurisdiction.
The detailed version
- Westfield v. Remington Lodging & Hospitality, LLC · No. 4:20-cv-08956
- Jeffrey White
- Feb. 2, 2021
Background
Defendants removed the case from the Superior Court of California for Contra Costa County to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. They asserted diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a), which generally requires complete diversity of citizenship between the parties and a sufficient amount in controversy. They also asserted that removal was proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b).
The defendants alleged that Keith Westfield was a California citizen. They described Remington Lodging & Hospitality, LLC, Ashford Walnut Creek LP, and Ashford TRS Walnut Creek, LLC, as Delaware entities with principal places of business in Texas. But they did not provide the citizenship of the LLCs’ owners or members or the limited partnership’s partners.
Jurisdictional Concern
The court explained that, under Ninth Circuit law, an LLC is a citizen of every state where its owners or members are citizens. The citizenship of a limited partnership depends on the citizenship of all its members, including its partners. The party invoking diversity jurisdiction must affirmatively identify the citizenship of all relevant parties.
Because the defendants had not provided the citizenship of their owners, members, or partners, the court could not determine from the removal notice whether complete diversity existed. The court noted that if any defendant’s members were California citizens, complete diversity would be lacking.
Order
The court ordered the defendants to show cause in writing by February 9, 2021, why the case should not be remanded to state court for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. An order to show cause requires a party to explain why the court should not take the stated action; it is not itself a final ruling on remand.
The court stated that it had considered the parties’ papers concerning Keith Westfield’s motion to remand and found the matter suitable for decision without oral argument. It vacated the hearing scheduled for March 26, 2021. The court stated that, if satisfied that it had jurisdiction, it would issue a written ruling on the motion in due course. This order did not grant or deny the motion to remand.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.