MMT City View Properties, LLC v. Orange Grove Ventures, LLC

No. 2:25-cv-01920-WLH-SK (C.D. Cal. May 7, 2025) · United States District Court for the Central District of California · May 7, 2025 · No. 2:25-cv-01920-WLH-SK

Summary

The United States District Court for the Central District of California grants Plaintiff MMT City View Properties, LLC’s motion to remand. The court holds that removal was barred by the forum defendant rule and that complete diversity was lacking because both limited liability companies’ sole members were California citizens. The court denies jurisdictional discovery and declines to award attorney’s fees and costs because Plaintiff did not provide sufficient billing information.

Holdings

  1. The forum defendant rule barred removal because defendant was a citizen of California, the forum state.
  2. Plaintiff did not waive the forum defendant rule by timely moving to remand, filing a first amended complaint, demanding a jury trial, or filing a certificate of interested parties.
  3. Complete diversity was lacking because both plaintiff and defendant were citizens of California through their respective sole members, so the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction.
  4. Jurisdictional discovery was unwarranted because defendant failed to show actual and substantial prejudice or identify evidence that could change the jurisdictional outcome.
  5. Plaintiff's request for costs and attorney's fees was denied because plaintiff failed to provide counsel's hourly rate and the number of hours expended, preventing the court from assessing reasonableness.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether removal was barred by the forum defendant rule because defendant was a citizen of California.
  2. Whether plaintiff waived its right to invoke the forum defendant rule by filing a first amended complaint, demanding a jury trial, and filing a certificate of interested parties after removal.
  3. Whether complete diversity existed where both plaintiff's and defendant's sole members were California citizens.
  4. Whether defendant was entitled to jurisdictional discovery concerning plaintiff's sole member's citizenship.
  5. Whether plaintiff was entitled to costs and attorney's fees under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).

Disposition

remanded

Cases Cited (15)

  • Voltage Pictures, LLC v. Gussi, S.A. de C.V., 92 F.4th 815, 822 (9th Cir. 2024)(followed)
  • NewGen, LLC v. Safe Cig, LLC, 840 F.3d 606, 612 (9th Cir. 2016)(followed)
  • Lively v. Wild Oats Markets, Inc., 456 F.3d 933, 939-42 (9th Cir. 2006)(followed)
  • Nevada v. Bank of America Corp., 672 F.3d 661, 667 (9th Cir. 2012)(followed)
  • In re Moore, 209 U.S. 490, 496 (1908)(distinguished)
  • Ex parte Harding, 219 U.S. 363 (1911)(not otherwise treated)
  • Everest Sys. Co. v. Platinum Roofing, Inc., No. 19-cv-03133-BLF, 2019 WL 3387951, at *1-2 (N.D. Cal. July 26, 2019)(followed)
  • SWC Inc. v. Elite Promo Inc., 234 F. Supp. 3d 1018, 1022-23 (N.D. Cal. 2017)(followed)
  • Rapid Displays, Inc. v. Ford, Walker, Haggerty & Behar, LLP, No. 16-cv-1703-WQH-JLB, 2016 WL 6543207, at *1-4 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 3, 2016)(followed)
  • Butcher's Union Local No. 498, United Food & Commercial Workers v. SDC Inv., Inc., 788 F.2d 535, 540 (9th Cir. 1986)(followed)

Showing top 10 of 15.

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…