LeMonde Salon, LLC v. L'Oreal Group, Inc.
| LeMonde Salon, LLC |
| Doe Entities 1-10, L'Oreal Group, Inc., Doe Limited Liability Companies 1-10, Shu Uemura Art of Hair LLC, Jane Does 1-10, John Does 1-10, Andrew Roy, Kerastase Paris SA, Doe Corporations 1-10 and L'Oreal USA, Inc. |
| 1:2019cv00256 |
| May 17, 2019 |
| US District Court for the District of Hawaii |
| ALAN C KAY |
| ROM TRADER |
| Contract: Other |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1441 |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on June 19, 2019. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 11 Acknowledgment by the Circuit Court of the First Circuit, State of Hawaii re ECF #9 ORDER AND STIPULATION TO REMAND FROM FEDERAL COURT TO STATE COURT (Attachments: #1 Mailing Envelope) (jo) |
| Filing 10 Letter to Circuit Court of the First Circuit, State of Hawaii re ECF #9 ORDER AND STIPULATION TO REMAND FROM FEDERAL COURT TO STATE COURT, dated June 14, 2019 (jo) |
Filing 9
ORDER AND STIPULATION TO REMAND FROM FEDERAL COURT TO STATE COURT - Signed by JUDGE ALAN C. KAY on 6/10/2019. (jo)
|
| Filing 7 STIPULATION [Extending Time for Defendant Shu Uemura Art of Hair LLC to Respond to Plaintiff's Complaint] by Shu Uemura Art of Hair LLC. (Osika, Maile) |
| Filing 8 TRANSMITTAL of DOCUMENTS from the First Circuit Court, State of Hawaii; CV 19-1-0655-04 BIA (Attachments: #1 Circuit Court Clerk's Certificate, #2 Computerized Index, #3 Verified Complaint, #4 Defendant SHU UEMURA ART OF HAIR LLC's Notice of Removal) (jo) |
| Filing 6 EO: The Court reschedules the Rule 16 Scheduling Conference from 6/17/19 @ 9:00 AM to 7/16/2019 @ 9:00 AM before MAGISTRATE JUDGE ROM TRADER. Rule 16 Scheduling Conference statements to be filed by 7/9/19. (MAGISTRATE JUDGE ROM TRADER)(tbf, ) |
| Filing 5 EO: On April 24, 2019, Plaintiff LeMonde Salon, LLC ("Plaintiff") filed a Complaint in the State of Hawai'i Circuit Court of the First Circuit, asserting state-law claims against Defendants L'Oreal Group, Inc., L'Oreal USA, Inc., Kerastase Paris SA, Shu Uemura Art of Hair, LLC, Andrew Roy, and numerous Doe defendants. Compl., ECF No. [1-1]. On May 17, 2019, Defendant Shu Uemura Art of Hair LLC ("Defendant Shu Uemura") removed the action to this Court on the basis of diversity jurisdiction. Notice of Removal, ECF No. #1 ; see also 28 U.S.C. 1332, 1441.Section 1332(a)(1) provides that "district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and is between citizens of different states[.]" 28 U.S.C. 1332(a)(1); see also 28 U.S.C. 1332(a)(3) (providing for district courts' original jurisdiction over civil actions that meet the amount-in-controversy threshold and are between "citizens of different [s]tates and in which citizens or subjects of a foreign state are additional parties"). A federal court may not exercise diversity jurisdiction unless there is complete diversity between the opposing partiesthat is, unless all plaintiffs are citizens of different states than all defendants. See, e.g., Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Servs., Inc., 545 U.S. 546, 553 (2005) ("[Section] 1332... requir[es] complete diversity: In a case with multiple plaintiffs and multiple defendants, the presence in the action of a single plaintiff from the same [s]tate as a single defendant deprives the district court of original diversity jurisdiction over the entire action."). For purposes of diversity jurisdiction, a limited liability company ("LLC") is a citizen of every state of which its members are citizens. Johnson v. Columbia Props. Anchorage, 437 F.3d 894, 899 (9th Cir. 2006). Moreover, the claims of a single plaintiff against multiple defendants may only be aggregated to meet the amount-in-controversy requirement when those claims are "common and undivided so that the defendants' liability is joint and not several." Libby, McNeil, and Libby v. City Nat'l Bank, 592 F.2d 504, 510 (9th Cir. 1978) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). And where it is not facially evident from a complaint that the amount in controversy is more than $75,000, the party seeking removal must establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy meets the jurisdictional threshold. Valdez v. Allstate Ins. Co., 372 F.3d 1115, 1117 (9th Cir. 2004); see also Singer v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 116 F.3d 373, 377 (9th Cir. 1997) (noting that, where it is not "facially apparent from the complaint that the jurisdictional amount is in controversy... the court may... require parties to submit summary-judgment-type evidence relevant to the amount in controversy at the time of removal." (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)). Federal courts are required to consider jurisdictional issues sua sponte. Kwai Fun Wong v. Beebe, 732 F.3d 1030, 1036 (9th Cir. 2013). The removal statute, 28 U.S.C. 1441, is to be "strictly construe[d]... against removal jurisdiction," and "[f]ederal jurisdiction must be rejected if there is any doubt as to the right of removal in the first instance." Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992). The burden of establishing the existence of removal jurisdiction falls to the party seeking to invoke it. Id. Neither the Complaint nor the Notice of Removal alleges the state citizenship of the members of Plaintiff, which is an LLC. See generally Compl.; Notice of Removal. Moreover, it is not facially evident from the Complaint that more than $75,000 is in controversy, and the Court finds that Defendant Shu Uemura has failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy meets the jurisdictional threshold. See Valdez, 372 F.3d at 1117. The Court therefore ORDERS Defendant Shu Uemura to SHOW CAUSE, by July 1, 2019, why removal of this action is proper. Should Plaintiff or any other party wish to file briefing or evidence on the issues raised herein, it must do so by July 15, 2019. If Defendant Shu Uemura fails to respond to this Order to Show Cause by July 1, 2019, the Court will remand this action to the State of Hawai'i Circuit Court for the First Circuit on the grounds that Defendant Shu Uemura has failed to carry its burden of establishing this Court's jurisdiction.IT IS SO ORDERED. (JUDGE ALAN C. KAY)(il, ) |
|
Filing 4
Order Setting Rule 16 Scheduling Conference is set for 09:00 AM on 6/17/2019 before MAGISTRATE JUDGE ROM TRADER - Signed by CHIEF JUDGE J. MICHAEL SEABRIGHT on 5/17/2019. (Attachments: #1 Memo from Clerk Re: Corporate Disclosure Statement) (jo)
|
| Filing 3 NOTICE of Case Assignment: Please reflect Civil Case Number CV 19-00256 ACK-RT on all further pleadings. (jo) |
| Filing 2 CIVIL Cover Sheet by Shu Uemura Art of Hair LLC. (Osika, Maile) |
| Filing 1 NOTICE OF REMOVAL by Shu Uemura Art of Hair LLC [of Civil Action Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec 1441 (Diversity Jurisdiction)] from First Circuit Court, case number Civil No. 19-1-0655-04 BIA. ( Filing fee $ 400 receipt number 0975-2203732), filed by Shu Uemura Art of Hair LLC. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit "1" - Verified Complaint filed 4/24/19, #2 Certificate of Service)(Osika, Maile) |
Access additional case information on PACER
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the Hawaii District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
