Hunter v. Hines Interests LP
- Maxine Chesney
- 3:21-cv-06316
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Hunter v. Hines GS Interests LLC, Judge Chesney ordered Hines to explain removal jurisdiction and postponed motion-to-dismiss deadlines without deciding the merits.
The two plaintiffs and Hines were affected: Hines had to respond to the jurisdictional deficiency, and the plaintiffs’ deadline and hearing concerning Hines’s motion to dismiss were postponed.
What happened
In Hunter v. Hines GS Interests LLC, two former Hines employees brought state-law claims based on alleged racial harassment at work. Hines removed the case to federal court, asserting that the parties were citizens of different states and that more than $75,000 was at stake.
The court found Hines’s removal notice insufficient because Hines identified itself as a limited partnership but did not identify its general and limited partners or their states of citizenship. The court therefore directed Hines to explain by September 10, 2021, why the case should not be sent back to state court for lack of federal jurisdiction.
Judge Chesney also extended the deadline for the plaintiffs’ opposition to Hines’s motion to dismiss and continued the hearing, with new dates to be set if needed after the jurisdiction issue was resolved. The court did not decide whether the case would be remanded or whether the claims should be dismissed.
The detailed version
- Hunter v. Hines Interests LP · No. 3:21-cv-06316
- Maxine Chesney
- Aug. 24, 2021
Background
The plaintiffs filed state-law claims in state court on July 7, 2021. The opinion says both plaintiffs were former employees of Hines and alleged racial harassment at the workplace. Hines removed the action to federal court on August 16, 2021, asserting diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1). That jurisdiction generally requires the parties to be citizens of different states and the amount in controversy to exceed $75,000, excluding interest and costs.
Jurisdictional Deficiency
The court concluded that Hines’s notice of removal did not allege facts sufficient to establish complete diversity of citizenship. Hines described itself as a limited partnership but did not identify its general partners and limited partners or state the citizenship of each partner. A limited partnership is treated as a citizen of every state where its general and limited partners are citizens. The court therefore found the removal notice deficient.
The court also noted that, although Hines appeared to base the amount in controversy partly on the plaintiffs’ annual salaries, the complaint did not allege that either plaintiff had been terminated or provide another basis for calculating economic loss. The court stated, however, that the alleged harassment’s nature and length appeared sufficient for a reasonable estimate of noneconomic damages to meet the statutory amount requirement.
Order
The court directed Hines to show cause in writing by September 10, 2021, why the action should not be remanded for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. This was a direction to respond, not a final ruling that the case would be remanded.
Hines had also filed a motion to dismiss on August 23, 2021. The court extended the deadline for the plaintiffs’ opposition and continued the scheduled hearing, stating that the dates would be reset if necessary after the jurisdictional issue was resolved. Hines argued that claims under the Fair Employment and Housing Act should be dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, but the court did not reach that argument because it first had to determine whether federal subject matter jurisdiction existed.
Judge Maxine M. Chesney did not decide the remand issue, the motion to dismiss, the exhaustion argument, or the merits of the plaintiffs’ claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.