Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alnd-5_15-cv-00650/USCOURTS-alnd-5_15-cv-00650-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition For Removal--Other Contract

---

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHEASTERN DIVISION

ASHBURN FAMILY

PROPERTIES, LLC,

Plaintiff,

vs.

EBR HUNTSVILLE, LLC,

EBL&S PROPERTY

MANAGEMENT, INC., AT

HOME GROUP, INC., and AT

HOME STORES, LLC,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil Action No. 5:15-cv-00650-CLS

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Plaintiff, Ashburn Family Properties, LLC, commenced this action in the

Circuit Court of Madison County, Alabama, against defendants, EBR Huntsville,

LLC; EBL&S Property Management, Inc.; At Home Group, Inc.; and, At Home

Stores, LLC. Plaintiff’s state-court complaint sought a judgment declaring that a

lease and sub-lease are void and asserted a breach of contract claim.

1 Defendants

removed the action to this court on April 17, 2015.

2 The action presently is before

1

 Doc. no. 1-2 (State Court Complaint) ¶ ¶ 22-34.

2

 Doc. no. 1 (Notice of Removal). This court has stayed defendant At Home Group, Inc.’s

motion to dismiss and the motions for summaryjudgment filed by defendants EBR Huntsville, LLC,

and EBL&S Property Management, Inc., pending resolution of the present motion to remand. Doc.

no. 22.

-1-

FILED

 2015 Aug-13 AM 08:10

U.S. DISTRICT COURT

N.D. OF ALABAMA

Case 5:15-cv-00650-CLS Document 24 Filed 08/13/15 Page 1 of 8
the court on plaintiff’s motion to remand under 28 U.S.C. § 1332.

3

Plaintiff contends that defendants failed to establish complete diversity of

citizenship, and failed to include allstate court pleadings and process with the notice

of removal.

4

 

I. LEGAL STANDARDS GOVERNING MOTIONS TO REMAND

Federal district courts are tribunals of limited jurisdiction, “empowered to hear

only those cases within the judicial power of the United States as defined by Article

III of the Constitution,’ and which have been entrusted to them by a jurisdictional

grant authorized by Congress.” University of South Alabama v. The American

Tobacco Co., 168 F.3d 405, 409 (11th Cir. 1999) (quoting Taylor v. Appleton, 30

F.3d 1365, 1367 (11th Cir. 1994)). Accordingly, an “Article III court must be sure

of its own jurisdiction before getting to the merits” of any action. Ortiz v. Fibreboard

Corp., 527 U.S. 815, 831 (1999) (citing Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better

Environment, 523 U.S. 83, 88-89 (1998)). A removing defendant bears the burden

of proving that federal jurisdiction exists. See, e.g., Leonard v. Enterprise Rent A

Car, 279 F.3d 967, 972 (11th Cir. 2002); Williams v. Best Buy Co., 269 F.3d 1316,

1319-20 (11th Cir. 2001)); Kirkland v. Midland Mortgage Co., 243 F.3d 1277, 1281

3

 Doc. no. 18 (Motion to Remand).

4

Id. at 2.

-2-

Case 5:15-cv-00650-CLS Document 24 Filed 08/13/15 Page 2 of 8
n.5 (11th Cir. 2001) (“[T]he burden is on the party who sought removal to

demonstrate that federal jurisdiction exists.”) (citing Tapscott v. MS Dealer Service

Corp., 77 F.3d 1353, 1356 (11th Cir. 1996), overruled on other grounds by Cohen v.

Office Depot, Inc., 204 F.3d 1069 (11th Cir. 2000)). Accordingly, removal statutes

must be construed narrowly, and “all uncertainties as to removal jurisdiction are to

be resolved in favor of remand.” Russell Corp. v. American Home Assurance Co.,

264 F.3d 1040, 1050 (11th Cir. 2001) (citing Burns v. Windsor Insurance Co., 31

F.3d 1092, 1095 (11th Cir. 1994)). Further, the court must focus upon jurisdictional

facts alleged on the date the case was removed from state court. See, e.g., Burns, 31

F.3d at 1097 n.13 (“Jurisdictional facts are assessed on the basis of plaintiff’s

complaint as of the time of removal.”) (emphasis in original) (citations omitted); see

also, e.g., Leonard, 279 F.3d at 972 (same).

II. DISCUSSION

A. Diversity of Citizenship

Defendants contend that this court enjoysjurisdiction over this action pursuant

to the diversity statute. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). That statute requires complete

diversity, meaning each plaintiff is of diverse citizenship from each defendant.

5

5 Defendants have proven, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the amount in

controversy in this case exceeds the statutory minimum. See Doc. no. 1, at 8 (“In this action, the

value of the ‘object of the litigation’ is the value of the Lease and Sublease that Plaintiff seeks to

void. In this case, considering the Sublease alone, the amount of rent due is $36,833.33 per month,

-3-

Case 5:15-cv-00650-CLS Document 24 Filed 08/13/15 Page 3 of 8
Triggs v. John Crump Toyota, 154 F.3d 1284, 1287 (11th Cir. 1998).

Defendants initially determined the citizenship of plaintiff, Ashburn Family

Properties, LLC, and two of the defendants, At Home Stores, LLC, and EBR

Huntsville, LLC, asif they were corporations, rather than limited liability companies.

A corporation is a citizen of both the state in which it is incorporated and the state

where its principal place of businessislocated. Cabalceta v. Standard Fruit Co., 883

F.2d 1553, 1559 (11th Cir. 1989). “A limited liability company is a citizen of any

state of which a member of the company is a citizen.” Rolling Greens MHP, L.P. v.

Comcast SCH Holdings, L.L.C., 374 F.3d 1020, 1022 (11th Cir. 2004). 

The Eleventh Circuit dictates a liberal approach with regard to allowing

defendantsto correct deficienciesin a notice of removal. See Corporate Management

Advisors, Inc. v. Artjen Complexus, Inc., 561 F.3d 1294, 1297 (11th Cir. 2009)

(holding that, if a plaintiff moves to remand because of a defendant’s failure to

adequately allege diversity of citizenship in the notice of removal, the “district court

should allow [the defendant] to cure the omission”) (internal quotations omitted)

(alterations supplied); see also Payroll Management, Inc. v. Lexington Insurance

Co., 566 F. App’x 796, 803 (11th Cir. 2004) (permitting defendants to amend their

with rent increasing in annual increments. . . .When considered in conjunction with the rent due

under the Lease, which currently is at $32,000 annually, and set to increase for the remaining 54

years in the 99-year Lease term. . . , a preponderance of the evidence indicates that the amount in

controversy, is more than likely to exceed $75,000.00.”) (emphasis in original).

-4-

Case 5:15-cv-00650-CLS Document 24 Filed 08/13/15 Page 4 of 8
removal notice to properly allege citizenship).

The amended notice of removal shows that plaintiff, Ashburn Family

Properties, LLC, has one member: the Estate of James Cecil Ashburn.

6 As stated

previously, the citizenship of a limited liability company is determined by the

citizenship of its members. See Rolling Greens MHP, L.P., 374 F.3d at 1022.

Moreover, the citizenship of an estate is that of the decedent. Moore v. North

America Sports, Inc., 623 F.3d 1325, 1327 n.2 (11th Cir. 2010). James Cecil Ashburn

was a citizen of Alabama at the time of his death.

7 Therefore, Ashburn Family

Properties, LLC, is a citizen of Alabama.

Defendants also corrected the citizenship of the two limited liability company

defendants in the amended notice of removal.

8 Defendant At Home Stores, LLC, has

one member: At Home Companies, LLC.

9 At Home Companies, LLC, in turn, has

one member: Home Holding III, Inc., a Delaware corporation having its principal

place of business in Texas.

10 Therefore, At Home Stores, LLC, is a citizen of

Delaware and Texas. 

Defendant EBR Huntsville, LLC, has two members: Buster, Inc., and NPAEP

6

 Doc. no. 23-1, at 2.

7

Id.

8

 Id. at 2-4.

9

 Id. at 2-3.

10

 Id. at 3.

-5-

Case 5:15-cv-00650-CLS Document 24 Filed 08/13/15 Page 5 of 8
of Delaware, LLC.11 Buster, Inc., is a Delaware corporation with its principal place

of business in Pennsylvania.12 NPAEP of Delaware, LLC, has two members:

National Property Management Corporation and the Edward Lipkin Grantor Trust.

13

National PropertyManagementCorporation is a Nevada corporation with its principal

place of business in Pennsylvania.14 The settlor of the Edward Lipkin Grantor Trust

is a Pennsylvania citizen; each of the three trusteesis a Pennsylvania citizen; and, one

beneficiary is from Florida, and the other beneficiary is from New York.

15

Under Eleventh Circuit law, “the citizenship of trust fund members is

determinative of the existence of diversity of citizenship.” Laborers Local 938 Joint

Health & Welfare Trust Fund v. B.R. Starnes Co., 827 F.2d 1454, 1457 (11th Cir.

1987) (emphasis added). Whether “trust fund members” includes both trustees and

beneficiariesis of no consequence here, because the settlor,trustees, and beneficiaries

— i.e., all possible “trust fund members” — are of diverse citizenship from plaintiff,

an Alabama citizen.

As defendants stated in both their notice of removal and amended notice of

removal, defendant EBL&S Property Management, Inc., is a citizen of Delaware and

11

Id.

12

 Doc. no. 23-1, at 3.

13

Id.

14

Id.

15

 Id. at 3-4.

-6-

Case 5:15-cv-00650-CLS Document 24 Filed 08/13/15 Page 6 of 8
Pennsylvania.16 Defendant At Home Group, Inc., is a citizen of Delaware and

Texas.

17 All four defendants are diverse from plaintiff, an Alabama citizen, thereby

satisfying the statutory requirement of complete diversity.

Accordingly, the motion to remand for lack of complete diversity of citizenship

is due to be denied.

B. Failure to Include the Entire State Court File with the Notice of Removal

Plaintiff contends that this case should be remanded because At Home Stores

“fail[ed] to include all parts of the state court file” in the notice of removal.

18

Defendants provided copies of all documents served upon them in their amended

notice of removal.

19

Accordingly, the motion to remand on that ground is due to be denied.

III. ORDER 

In accordance with the foregoing, it is ORDERED that the motion to remand

is DENIED. 

16 EBL&S Property Management, Inc., is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of

business in Pennsylvania. Doc. no. 23-1 (Amended Notice of Removal), at 4.

17 At Home Group, Inc., is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in

Texas. Doc. no. 23-1 (Amended Notice of Removal), at 2.

18

 Doc. no. 18 (Motion to Remand), at 6 (alteration supplied).

19

 Doc. no. 23-1 (Amended Notice of Removal).

-7-

Case 5:15-cv-00650-CLS Document 24 Filed 08/13/15 Page 7 of 8
DONE and ORDERED this 12th day of August, 2015.

___________________________

United States District Judge

-8-

Case 5:15-cv-00650-CLS Document 24 Filed 08/13/15 Page 8 of 8