Bruni Media, LLC v. AAPM Media Group, LLC

Background

Bruni Media, LLC, and its members, Samuel Bruni and Jenny Bruni, brought claims in California state court alleging fraud, unfair trade practices, and other conduct arising from Bruni Media’s purchase of Click Media. AAPM Media Group, LLC, does business as Click Media. The opinion states that AAPM’s members and the individual defendants are citizens of Minnesota, while Samuel and Jenny Bruni are residents of California and Bruni Media is therefore a citizen of California.

The defendants removed the action to the United States District Court for the Central District of California. That court found that it lacked personal jurisdiction over the defendants and transferred the case to the District of Minnesota. The plaintiffs then moved to remand the case. At the hearing, they conceded that remand was unavailable because the lawsuit had not originated in Minnesota state court. They instead asked the court to dismiss the matter without prejudice so they could file it in Minnesota state court.

Issue and Arguments

The dispute concerned the forum-defendant rule in 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b)(2). That rule generally prevents a defendant from removing a diversity case to federal court when a defendant is a citizen of the state where the action was originally filed. The plaintiffs argued that because the case was now in federal court in Minnesota and all defendants were Minnesota citizens, the federal court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction.

The defendants argued that the rule is measured at the time of removal. Because the case was filed in California state court and removed to federal court in California, the defendants contended that the rule did not bar removal. The Minnesota court compared this situation with a prior related proceeding in which the initial removal violated the rule because a defendant was a citizen of the state where the action had originally been filed.

Ruling

The court agreed with the defendants. It held that the relevant question was whether the forum-defendant rule was violated when the defendants removed the case to the Central District of California. There was no such violation because the defendants were not citizens of California at that time. The later transfer to Minnesota did not trigger the rule.

The court therefore held that it had subject-matter jurisdiction and denied the plaintiffs’ Motion to Remand. The order did not decide the underlying fraud, unfair-trade-practices, or other claims.