MILON v. Nordstrom, Inc.
- Jeffrey White
- 4:23-cv-05342
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 1
In MILON v. Nordstrom, Inc., Judge White ordered defendants to supplement citizenship information while plaintiff’s remand motion remained under submission.
Nordstrom, Inc., Bayshore 101, LLC, Gateway 101, LLC, and Yuri Milon were affected by the order. The defendants had to provide additional membership information, while Milon’s motion to remand remained under consideration.
What happened
In MILON v. Nordstrom, Inc., defendants removed the case to federal court based on diversity jurisdiction. They did not explain the citizenship of the members of Bayshore 101, LLC or Gateway 101, LLC.
The court ordered defendants to file a supplemental declaration limited to facts about those companies’ membership by December 18, 2023. The court would accept no additional argument on the plaintiff’s motion to return the case to state court, which remained under consideration.
Judge Jeffrey S. White issued the order on December 13, 2023. The order did not decide the remand motion or the underlying dispute.
The detailed version
- MILON v. Nordstrom, Inc. · No. 4:23-cv-05342
- Jeffrey White
- Dec. 13, 2023
Background
Defendants Nordstrom, Inc. and Bayshore 101, LLC removed the action to federal court based on diversity jurisdiction. Diversity jurisdiction generally requires the parties to be citizens of different states and requires the court to determine the citizenship of each member of a limited liability company. The defendants did not address the citizenship of the members of Bayshore or Gateway 101, LLC.
The plaintiff attached a Secretary of State filing identifying S&Y Giverny Corporation as Bayshore’s “manager or member” and listing a California address for that corporation.
Order
The court ordered the defendants to file a supplemental declaration limited to facts regarding the membership of Bayshore and Gateway by December 18, 2023. The court stated that it would accept no additional argument on the plaintiff’s motion to remand, meaning the motion seeking to return the case to state court. That motion remained under submission.
Result
The court directed defendants to supplement the record. The opinion did not rule on the remand motion and did not decide the underlying dispute.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.