United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Seattle
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE REGARDING SUBJECT MATTER
L. ROBART UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
the court is Defendant Greystar Management Services, LP's
(“Greystar”) notice of removal. (Not. of Removal
(Dkt. # 1).) The court has examined Greystar's notice of
removal and supporting documentation and finds that Greystar
has failed to establish that the court has subject matter
jurisdiction over this action.
invokes the court's diversity jurisdiction. (Not. of
Removal at 2-3.) A federal court's diversity jurisdiction
extends to “all civil actions where the matter in
controversy exceeds . . . $75, 000 . . . and is between . . .
citizens of different States.” 28 U.S.C. §
1332(a)(1). “In cases where entities rather than
individuals are litigants, diversity jurisdiction depends on
the form of the entity.” Johnson v. Columbia Props.
Anchorage, LP, 437 F.3d 894, 899 (9th Cir. 2006). Here,
Greystar states that it is a limited liability partnership
incorporated in Delaware with its principal place of business
in South Carolina. (Not. of Removal at 2; Ford Decl. (Dkt. #
1-3) ¶ 3.) Greystar further alleges that its general
partner is GREP General Partner, LLC, and its limited partner
is Greystar Real Estate Partners, LLC, both of which are
limited liability companies incorporated in Delaware with
their principal places of business in South Carolina. (Not.
of Removal at 2; Ford Decl. ¶¶ 4-5.)
Greystar is a limited liability partnership, the court must
make jurisdictional determinations specific to that type of
entity. Johnson, 437 F.3d at 899. “For
purposes of diversity jurisdiction, a limited partnership is
a citizen of all of the states of which its partners are
citizens . . . .” Id. In this instance,
however, examining the citizenship of Greystar's partners
does not end the inquiry because both of Greystar's
partners are limited liability companies. When the owners,
members, or partners of an entity party are themselves
entities, the court must look to the corporate citizenship of
the owner, member, or partner entities, which is determined
in the same manner described above. See Id.
(examining corporate citizenship of a limited partnership
whose partners included LLCs by looking to the citizenship of
the members/owners of those LLCs). “For purposes of
diversity jurisdiction, . . . a limited liability corporation
is a citizen of all of the states of which its owners/members
are citizens.” Id. Thus, to establish subject
matter jurisdiction, Greystar must establish that none of the
partners of Greystar are citizens of
Washington-Plaintiff's home state. (See Compl.
(Dkt. # 1-1) ¶ 2.1 (“Plaintiff Sirleem Misango is
a resident of King County, Washington.”).) This has not
happened here. The court has no information before it
establishing or alleging the citizenship of Greystar's
partners. (See generally Not. of Removal.) Further,
if any of the members of Greystar's partners are
themselves business entities, Greystar must repeat this
process again, using the appropriate test for citizenship of
each business entity. Indeed, Greystar must repeat this
process for as many times as is necessary to properly
establish the court's subject matter jurisdiction.
court has previously explained this process in great detail
to Greystar. In Antoine Reeves v. ERGS IX REO Owner, LLC,
et al., No. C14-0969JLR (W.D. Wash.), this court issued
not one but three orders to show cause to Greystar regarding
the court's subject matter jurisdiction. See
id., Dkt. ## 6, 15, 20. Greystar failed to adequately
demonstrate its citizenship to establish the court's
diversity jurisdiction in response to any of those orders.
See id., Dkt. ## 11, 18, 21. Instead, in response to
the court's last order to show cause, Greystar stated
that it “believe[d] the best course of action [wa]s a
remand to state court, rather than having to identify every
owner, member, and partner and obtain evidence of the state
of citizenship of every owner, member, and partnership in
their complicated ownership charts . . . .”
Id., Dkt. # 21 at 1.
court will not provide Greystar with three opportunities to
establish the court's subject matter jurisdiction here as
it did in the Antoine Reeves matter. To do so would
be a grave waste of judicial resources. The court will permit
Greystar one opportunity in response to this order to show
cause to adequately establish its citizenship so that the
court can be assured of its own subject matter jurisdiction.
The court further cautions Greystar that it will not indulge
Greystar's continued efforts to invoke this court's
diversity jurisdiction unless it is willing to adequately
establish its citizenship despite its “complicated
ownership charts.” See Antoine Reeves, No.
C14-0969JLR (W.D. Wash.), Dkt. # 21 at 1. The court cautions
Greystar that if it continues to file or remove cases in this
district by invoking the court's diversity jurisdiction
without being willing to adequately establish a basis for the
court's exercise of that jurisdiction, Greystar may be
subject to sanctions.
the court orders Greystar to show cause why this case should
not be remanded for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. If
Greystar fails to provide the court with the information
described above within seven (7) days of the date of ...