1

Case No.: 5:17-cv-00899-EJD

ORDER REMANDING CASE

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

SAN JOSE DIVISION

HOLMAN BUILDING ASSOCIATES, LP,

Plaintiff,

v.

AMCO INSURANCE COMPANY,

Defendant.

Case No. 5:17-cv-00899-EJD 

ORDER REMANDING CASE

On February 24, 2017, Magistrate Judge Nathanael Cousins issued an order to show cause 

regarding subject matter jurisdiction requiring Defendant AMCO Insurance Company (“AMCO”) 

to file a response “presenting facts to the Court demonstrating that each member of [Plaintiff 

Holman Building Associates LP] is diverse from AMCO.” Dkt. No. 6. Judge Cousins observed 

that in a diversity action involving a limited partnership like this one, the court must consider the 

citizenship of each limited partner in assessing the existence of federal jurisdiction. Id. (citing 

Carden v. Arkoma Assocs., 494 U.S. 185, 195 (1990); Grupo Dataflux v. Atlas Glob. Grp., L.P., 

541 U.S. 567, 569 (2004)); Johnson v. Columbia Props. Anchorage, LP, 437 F.3d 894, 899 (9th 

Cir. 2006) (holding that a limited partnership “is a citizen of every state of which its 

owners/members are citizens”). AMCO’s Notice of Removal was facially defective because it did 

not supply this information for each partner of Holman Building Associates LP, despite AMCO’s 

obligation to provide it. See Kanter v. Warner-Lambert Co., 265 F.3d 853, 857 (9th Cir. 2001) 

(“Absent unusual circumstances, a party seeking to invoke diversity jurisdiction should be able to 

allege affirmatively the actual citizenship of the relevant parties.”); DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. 

Cuno, 547 U.S. 332, 342 n.3 (2006) (Because “federal courts lack jurisdiction unless the contrary 

Case 5:17-cv-00899-EJD Document 13 Filed 03/06/17 Page 1 of 2
2

Case No.: 5:17-cv-00899-EJD

ORDER REMANDING CASE

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

appears affirmatively from the record, the party asserting federal jurisdiction when it is challenged 

has the burden of establishing it.”). 

This case has since been reassigned to the undersigned, and AMCO filed a timely response 

to the order to show cause indicating that it lacks knowledge of the residence locations for any of 

Holman Building Associates LP’s partners. Dkt. No. 12. It also states, however, that counsel has 

confirmed in an email that no partners are residents of AMCO’s state of incorporation and 

principal place of business. Id. 

AMCO’s response does not satisfy its burden to affirmatively demonstrate federal subject 

matter jurisdiction under these circumstances. Statements like the one offered by AMCO, which 

does not for each of the partners of Holman Building Associates LP “identify of what state they 

are a citizen nor whether they are composed of another layer of partnerships,” have been rejected 

by the Ninth Circuit as too conclusory to establish complete diversity. Lindley Contours, LLC v. 

AABB Fitness Holdings, Inc., 414 Fed. Appx. 62, 65 (9th Cir. 2011). 

Despite an opportunity to correct its deficient Notice of Removal, AMCO has not 

adequately established diversity of the parties. The court must therefore presume that it lacks 

jurisdiction to proceed further. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 

(1994) (holding that “[i]t is to be presumed that a cause lies outside” federal jurisdiction). 

Accordingly, this action is REMANDED to Monterey County Superior Court. 

The Clerk shall close this file. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 6, 2017

______________________________________

EDWARD J. DAVILA

United States District Judge

Case 5:17-cv-00899-EJD Document 13 Filed 03/06/17 Page 2 of 2