Griffin v. Network 1 Special Opportunities Fund LP
- Yvonne Rogers
- 4:21-cv-01511
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Griffin v. Network 1, Judge Rogers remanded the case to state court because defendants did not establish federal jurisdiction.
Patrick Griffin, Network 1 Special Opportunities Fund LP–Ripple Series, and Aeon Group, Inc.; the case was returned to the Superior Court of California for San Francisco County.
What happened
Patrick Griffin sued Network 1 Special Opportunities Fund LP–Ripple Series and Aeon Group, Inc. in California state court. Aeon removed the case to federal court, claiming diversity jurisdiction and federal-question jurisdiction based on alleged violations of federal securities laws.
Griffin asked the federal court to send the case back to state court. He argued that the complaint raised only state-law claims and that the defendants had not shown the citizenship of Network 1’s partners. Neither defendant opposed the motion.
Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers granted the motion to remand. She ruled that the defendants had not met their burden to establish federal jurisdiction because they did not identify Network 1’s partners’ citizenship, and no federal claim appeared on the face of the complaint. The court directed the clerk to return the case to the Superior Court of California for San Francisco County and vacated the hearing.
The detailed version
- Griffin v. Network 1 Special Opportunities Fund LP · No. 4:21-cv-01511
- Yvonne Rogers
- Apr. 8, 2021
Background
Patrick Griffin originally filed the action in the Superior Court of California for San Francisco County against Aeon Inc., doing business as The Aeon Group, Inc., and Network 1 Special Opportunities Fund LP—Ripple Series. Aeon removed the case to federal court. Its notice of removal asserted diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1), stating that Griffin was a California citizen, Aeon was a Florida citizen, and Network was a Delaware citizen. Aeon also asserted federal-question jurisdiction because the contracts at issue allegedly violated federal securities laws. The notice stated that Network had consented to removal.
Motion to Remand
Griffin moved to remand, meaning to return the case to state court. He argued that the complaint asserted state-law claims and that the notice of removal did not establish complete diversity because it did not fully address Network’s citizenship as a limited partnership. Before filing the motion, Griffin’s counsel had requested a list of Network’s partners to confirm whether removal was proper, but Network declined to provide that information. Neither defendant filed an opposition to the motion.
Court’s Analysis
The court explained that the defendants seeking removal had the burden to establish federal jurisdiction. For diversity jurisdiction, the court stated that a limited liability partnership has the citizenship of each of its partners. Because the defendants did not identify the citizenship of Network’s partners, they did not meet that burden. The court also found that no federal claim appeared on the face of the complaint and noted that a federal defense generally does not provide a basis for removal.
Ruling
Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers granted the unopposed motion to remand. The clerk was directed to remand the action to the Superior Court of California for San Francisco County. The court also vacated the scheduled hearing and stated that the order terminated Docket No. 7. The order did not decide the underlying claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.