Treehouse California Almonds LLC v. Tram Bar Co-Packing LLC

Treehouse California Almonds · United States District Court for the Eastern District of California · March 3, 2025 · No. 1:24-cv-00992-JLT-SKO

Summary

The court ordered Defendant Tram Bar Co-Packing LLC to show cause why the action should not be remanded to state court because the Notice of Removal did not adequately establish the citizenship of the parties' LLC members for purposes of diversity jurisdiction. The court continued the mandatory scheduling conference and required Defendant to submit competent jurisdictional proof within fourteen days.

Holdings

  1. Defendant failed to meet its burden of establishing complete diversity because the notice of removal did not identify the members of the LLC parties or the citizenship of those members.
  2. The court may and must independently examine its subject matter jurisdiction, regardless of whether the parties raise the issue.
  3. The scheduling conference was properly continued to May 6, 2025, while the parties addressed the unresolved jurisdictional issue.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether Defendant established complete diversity of citizenship between the parties for purposes of removal under 28 U.S.C. § 1332.
  2. Whether the court should require Defendant to provide competent proof of the citizenship of all members of the LLC parties and show cause why the case should not be remanded.
  3. Whether the scheduling conference should be continued while the jurisdictional issue is resolved.

Disposition

other

Cases Cited (21)

  • Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994)(followed)
  • Abrego Abrego v. The Dow Chem. Co., 443 F.3d 676, 684 (9th Cir. 2006)(followed)
  • Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992)(followed)
  • Syngenta Crop Prot. v. Henson, 537 U.S. 28, 32 (2002)(followed)
  • O’Halloran v. Univ. of Wash., 856 F.2d 1375, 1380 (9th Cir. 1988)(followed)
  • Nishimoto v. Federman-Bachrach & Assoc., 903 F.2d 709, 712 n.3 (9th Cir. 1990)(followed)
  • United Investors Life Ins. Co. v. Waddell & Reed Inc., 360 F.3d 960, 966 (9th Cir. 2004)(followed)
  • Demery v. Kupperman, 735 F.2d 1139, 1149 n.8 (9th Cir. 1984)(followed)
  • Grupo Dataflux v. Atlas Global Grp., L.P., 541 U.S. 567, 593 (2004)(followed)
  • United States v. S. Cal. Edison Co., 300 F. Supp. 2d 964, 972 (E.D. Cal. 2004)(followed)

Showing top 10 of 21.

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…