Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-02800/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-02800-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Other Contract

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STEPHEN L. COULOMBE, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

FTI, LLC, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 16-cv-02800-JCS 

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 

REMAND AND DENYING FOR LACK

OF JURISDICTION MOTION TO 

DISMISS

Re: Dkt. No. 16

Plaintiffs Stephen Coloumbe, Robert Duffy, Elliot Fuhr, and Berkeley Research Group, 

LLC (“BRG”) filed this action for declaratory and injunctive relief in the California Superior 

Court for Alameda County against Defendants FTI, LLC and FTI Consulting, Inc. (collectively, 

“FTI”), alleging that FTI unlawfully restricts its current and former employees, such as Coulombe, 

Duffy, and Fuhr, from working for FTI’s competitors, such as BRG. See generally Compl. (dkt. 

1-1). FTI removed to this Court on the basis of diversity jurisdiction, asserting that Coulombe and 

Duffy are citizens of Massachusetts, Fuhr is a citizen of New York, and BRG—a Nevada LLC 

based in Emeryville, California—is a citizen of Nevada and California, while both FTI entities are 

citizens of Maryland. See Notice of Removal (dkt. 1) ¶¶ 6−9. 

Plaintiffs move to remand because, as a limited liability company, BRG is a citizen of 

every state of which its members are citizens, and BRG has members who are citizens of 

Maryland. See generally Mot. to Remand (dkt. 16) (citing, e.g., Johnson v. Columbia Props. 

Anchorage, LP, 437 F.3d 894, 899 (9th Cir. 2006)); Tenenbaum Decl. (dkt. 16-2). Accordingly, 

because BRG and FTI are both citizens of Maryland, there is no complete diversity as required for 

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. See Caterpillar Inc. v. Lewis, 519 U.S. 61, 68 (1996). FTI 

filed a statement of non-opposition (dkt. 24) to Plaintiffs’ motion to remand. Good cause 

Case 3:16-cv-02800-JCS Document 25 Filed 06/22/16 Page 1 of 2
2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

showing, Plaintiffs’ motion is GRANTED.1 The Clerk is instructed to remand the case to the

California Superior Court for Alameda County and to close the file in this Court.

FTI’s motion to dismiss (dkt. 13) is DENIED without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction, 

and the hearing set for July 15, 2016 is VACATED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 22, 2016

______________________________________

JOSEPH C. SPERO

Chief Magistrate Judge

 

1

The parties have consented to the jurisdiction of the undersigned magistrate judge for all 

purposes pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).

Case 3:16-cv-02800-JCS Document 25 Filed 06/22/16 Page 2 of 2