MILON v. Nordstrom, Inc.
- Jeffrey White
- 4:23-cv-05342
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In MILON v. Nordstrom, Judge White granted remand because defendants did not establish Gateway’s citizenship for diversity jurisdiction.
MILON, Nordstrom, Inc., Nordstrom Rack, Bayshore 1771, LLC, Gateway 101, LLC, and the Doe defendants; the case was returned to San Mateo Superior Court.
What happened
MILON sued Nordstrom, Inc., Nordstrom Rack, Bayshore 1771, LLC, Gateway 101, LLC, and Doe defendants in California state court after she was injured by falling plexiglass at a Nordstrom location. Nordstrom, Inc. and Bayshore later moved the case to federal court based on diversity jurisdiction.
MILON argued that the defendants had not shown that all parties were citizens of different states. The court found that the defendants had not provided enough information about the members of Gateway 101, LLC, to determine its citizenship. Because the defendants had the burden to establish federal jurisdiction and uncertainty required rejection of removal, the court granted the motion to remand.
Judge Jeffrey White ordered the Clerk to return the case to San Mateo Superior Court and close the federal case. The order decided where the case would proceed, not the underlying injury claims.
The detailed version
- MILON v. Nordstrom, Inc. · No. 4:23-cv-05342
- Jeffrey White
- Dec. 19, 2023
Background
On July 14, 2022, Plaintiff filed a complaint in the Superior Court of California for San Mateo County. She alleged that on June 19, 2020, a piece of plexiglass fell and struck her while she was at a Nordstrom located at 1771 E. Bayshore Road. The complaint named Nordstrom Rack, Bayshore 1771, LLC, Nordstrom, Inc., Gateway 101, LLC, and 100 Doe defendants.
On October 19, 2023, Nordstrom, Inc. and Bayshore 1771, LLC removed the case to the federal district court. They asserted that the court had diversity jurisdiction, which generally requires complete diversity of citizenship between the plaintiffs and defendants and an amount in controversy exceeding $75,000.
Analysis
MILON argued that the removing defendants had not shown that the Doe defendants and Bayshore 1771, LLC were diverse from her. The court rejected the argument concerning the Doe defendants because federal law disregards the citizenship of defendants sued under fictitious names when determining whether removal is proper.
The court explained that a limited liability company is a citizen of every state in which its members are citizens. Bayshore did not identify its members in the notice of removal or the opposition to the motion. After the court ordered supplemental briefing, the defendants stated that Giverny Corporation was Bayshore’s sole member and provided information that the court described as showing diversity among Plaintiff, Nordstrom, and Bayshore.
The defendants had not adequately addressed the citizenship of Gateway 101, LLC. Their removal papers described Gateway as a South Carolina corporation and referred to a South Carolina address, but an exhibit described it as a Delaware limited liability company. Other materials suggested that Gateway’s manager was a Florida corporation but did not establish whether that manager was Gateway’s sole member. In supplemental briefing, the defendants stated that they could not provide additional information about Gateway’s citizenship.
Ruling
Because the defendants had the burden of establishing complete diversity and the court could not determine whether Gateway’s members were diverse from Plaintiff, the court granted Plaintiff’s motion to remand. The Clerk was directed to remand the case to San Mateo Superior Court and close the federal file. The opinion does not decide the merits of Plaintiff’s injury claims.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.