Breckenridge Property Fund 2016, LLC v. Lynette Ingram
2:16-cv-07601
C.D. Cal.Nov 28, 2016Background
- Breckenridge Property Fund 2016, LLC filed an unlawful detainer action in Los Angeles County Superior Court against Kevin A. Fulton and Lynette Ingram.
- Fulton, proceeding pro se, removed the action to federal court on October 12, 2016, asserting diversity jurisdiction and alleged federal TILA issues.
- Plaintiff moved to remand; Fulton and Ingram did not file an opposition to the remand motion.
- Fulton alleged he is a California citizen and claimed Ingram’s citizenship was irrelevant because she had no interest and her whereabouts were unknown.
- Fulton mispleaded Plaintiff’s citizenship (treating an LLC like a corporation) and failed to allege Plaintiff’s members’ citizenship or principal place of business.
- The complaint seeks unlawful detainer damages of $106.67 per day and expressly states the demand does not exceed $10,000, well below the $75,000 amount-in-controversy requirement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Subject-matter jurisdiction (diversity) | N/A — seeks remand to state court | Complete diversity exists and amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 | No federal diversity jurisdiction: defendant failed to allege LLC citizenship properly and amount-in-controversy is insufficient |
| Proper pleading of an LLC's citizenship | N/A | Plaintiff is a corporation/organized in Delaware (defendant treated it as such) | Court: LLC citizenship must be shown by members’ citizenship; corporate dual citizenship requires state of incorporation and principal place of business — Fulton’s allegations were deficient |
| Amount-in-controversy in unlawful detainer | N/A | Amount in controversy can be the value of the property | Court: In unlawful detainer cases amount in controversy is the damages demanded in the complaint, here far below $75,000 |
| Existence of federal question (TILA) based on defendant’s assertions | N/A | TILA/federal issue arises (defense/counterclaim) | Court: Federal jurisdiction cannot be based on defenses or counterclaims; no federal claim appears on complaint face |
Key Cases Cited
- Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp., 546 U.S. 500 (Court must ensure subject-matter jurisdiction exists)
- Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 511 U.S. 375 (federal courts have limited jurisdiction and party claiming jurisdiction bears burden)
- McNutt v. Gen. Motors Acceptance Corp., 298 U.S. 178 (burden of proof for jurisdictional facts)
- Provincial Gov’t of Marinduque v. Placer Dome, Inc., 582 F.3d 1083 (removal statute strictly construed; defendant bears burden)
- Johnson v. Columbia Props. Anchorage, LP, 437 F.3d 894 (an LLC is a citizen of every state of which its members are citizens)
- Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386 (federal jurisdiction is determined by the plaintiff’s complaint)
- Vaden v. Discover Bank, 556 U.S. 49 (counterclaims/defenses do not create federal jurisdiction)
- Scholastic Entm’t, Inc. v. Fox Entm’t Grp., Inc., 336 F.3d 982 (remand for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction; no notice required for dismissal on jurisdictional grounds)