Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-03051/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-03051-0/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

WO NN

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

RNI, L.L.C., an Arizona limited liability

company, d/b/a Pure Romo Nutrition;

Thomas Incledon, individually and on

behalf of RNI, L.L.C., 

Plaintiffs, 

vs.

William Romanowski and Julie

Romanowski, husband and wife, 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 06-3051-PHX-EHC

ORDER

Defendants Romanowski removed this case from Maricopa County Superior Court

based on diversity of citizenship. Plaintiffs RNI, L.L.C. and Thomas Incledon (collectively

“RNI”) are citizens of Arizona. Defendants are citizens of California. RNI claims in its

complaint that Defendant William Romanowski, a member of RNI, L.L.C., withdrew as an

RNI member. The Romanowskis contend that William Romanowski did not withdraw as a

member, and therefore, is still a member of RNI.

For purposes of diversity jurisdiction, a limited liability company is a citizen of each

state of which its members are citizens, which Defendants do not dispute. See Johnson v.

Columbia Props. Anchorage, LP, 437 F.3d 894, 899 (9th Cir. 2006). RNI filed a Plaintiffs’

Motion to Remand (“Motion to Remand”) (Dkt. 57), arguing Defendants’ contention that

Case 2:06-cv-03051-EHC Document 68 Filed 07/31/08 Page 1 of 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

- 2 -

William Romanowski remains a member of RNI is an admission that he is a citizen of

Arizona, thus destroying complete diversity. The Romanowskis’ reliance on case law to

argue that the Court’s determination of diversity is confined to the Complaint is misplaced.

In Gould v. Mutual Life Insurance. Co., 790 F.2d 769 (9th Cir. 1986) and Ritchey v. Upjohn

Drug Co., 139 F.3d 1313 (9th Cir. 1998), the courts address issues of removal, not remand,

when they look to the complaint to ascertain citizenship. Furthermore, Defendants’ argument

regarding the timeliness of the Motion to Remand is without merit. Pursuant to Rule

12(h)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “[i]f the court determines at any time that

it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action.” (emphasis added).

“[T]he removing defendant has ‘always’ borne the burden of establishing federal

jurisdiction . . .” Abrego Abrego v. Dow Chemical Co., 443 F.3d 676, 682-83 (9th Cir.

2006). RNI contends in its complaint that William Romanowski withdrew from RNI; if

correct, diversity in this case is preserved. The Romanowskis, however, argue that he did

not withdraw from RNI; diversity is thus destroyed. At the same time, Defendants insist

diversity exists. Defendants cannot have it both ways; they have not met their burden of

establishing diversity.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that the Motion to Remand (Dkt. 57) is granted.

DATED this 31st day of July, 2008.

Case 2:06-cv-03051-EHC Document 68 Filed 07/31/08 Page 2 of 2