Goddard et al v Jubilant Hollisterstier LLC, No. 2:2023cv00004 - Document 14 (E.D. Wash. 2023)
Court Description: ORDER granting 6 Motion to Remand. Case remanded to Spokane County Superior Court. Signed by Judge Thomas O. Rice. (BF, Paralegal)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Goddard et al v Jubilant Hollisterstier LLC Case 2:23-cv-00004-TOR Doc. 14 ECF No. 14 filed 04/20/23 PageID.421 Page 1 of 6 1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 6 7 8 KEVIN GODDARD and ERIC SMITH, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, 9 10 11 12 13 14 Plaintiffs, NO. 2:23-CV-0004-TOR ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR REMAND v. JUBILANT HOLLISTERSTIER, LLC, a Delaware corporation, d/b/a Hollister-Stier Laboratories, LLC, Defendant. BEFORE THE COURT is Plaintiffs’ Motion for Remand (ECF No. 6). This 15 matter was submitted for consideration without oral argument. The Court has 16 reviewed the record and files herein, and is fully informed. For the reasons 17 discussed below, Plaintiffs’ Motion for Remand (ECF No. 6) is granted. 18 19 20 BACKGROUND This putative class action concerns employment disputes at a pharmaceutical manufacturing plant in Spokane County, Washington. See ECF No. 1-1. On June ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR REMAND ~ 1 Dockets.Justia.com Case 2:23-cv-00004-TOR ECF No. 14 filed 04/20/23 PageID.422 Page 2 of 6 1 19, 2020, Plaintiffs filed suit in the Superior Court of Washington for Spokane 2 County. Id. at 1. On December 23, 2022, Plaintiffs served Defendant with a 3 Motion to Certify Class Action, which Defendants assert proffered for the first 4 time sufficient facts from which Defendant could determine the amount in 5 controversy. ECF 1 at 3, ¶¶ 2–3. 6 On January 5, 2023, Defendant removed the case to this Court. ECF No. 1. 7 Defendant removed under the Class Action Fairness Act (“CAFA”). ECF No. 1 at 8 2, ¶ 1. Defendant alleges (1) at least one Plaintiff is a citizen of a different state 9 than Defendant, who is a Delaware company with a principle place of business in 10 Pennsylvania, (2) the number of alleged class members exceeds 100 members, and 11 (3) the aggregate amount in controversy exceeds $5,000,000 exclusive of costs and 12 interests. 13 On February 3, 2023, Plaintiffs filed the instant Motion for Remand. ECF 14 No. 6. The parties timely filed their respective response and reply. ECF Nos. 8, 15 12. The parties dispute whether diversity jurisdiction is established and whether 16 Defendant’s removal was timely. See generally id. 17 18 19 20 DISCUSSION I. Removal Standard Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a), a defendant may remove an action from state to federal court only if the federal court has original subject matter ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR REMAND ~ 2 Case 2:23-cv-00004-TOR ECF No. 14 filed 04/20/23 PageID.423 Page 3 of 6 1 jurisdiction over the action. “In civil cases, subject matter jurisdiction is generally 2 conferred upon federal district courts either through diversity jurisdiction, 28 3 U.S.C. § 1332, or federal question jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1331.” Peralta v. 4 Hispanic Bus., Inc., 419 F.3d 1064, 1068 (9th Cir. 2005). Diversity jurisdiction 5 exists when the matter in controversy is between “citizens of different States.” 28 6 U.S.C. § 1332(a). 7 Removal must be made within 30 days after service of a pleading, motion, or 8 other paper “from which it may first be ascertained that the case is one which is or 9 has become removable.” 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(3); see also Jordan v. Nationstar 10 Mortgage LLC, 781 F.3d 1178, 1184 (9th Cir. 2015) (“A case becomes 11 ‘removable’ for purposes of section 1446 when the CAFA ground for removal is 12 disclosed.”). 13 14 II. CAFA Jurisdiction Under CAFA, a class action may be removed if the amount in controversy 15 exceeds $5 million, the proposed class consists of more than 100 members, and 16 “any member of a class of plaintiffs is a citizen of a State different from any 17 defendant.” 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332(d)(2), (d)(5)(B). As a result, CAFA “abandons the 18 complete diversity rule for covered class actions” in exchange for a minimal 19 diversity standard. Abrego Abrego v. The Dow Chem. Co., 443 F.3d 676, 680 (9th 20 Cir. 2006) (citation omitted). ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR REMAND ~ 3 Case 2:23-cv-00004-TOR 1 ECF No. 14 filed 04/20/23 PageID.424 Page 4 of 6 Generally, courts have found that limited liability companies are 2 “unincorporated associations” for purposes of CAFA. See Jack v. Ring LLC, 553 3 F. Supp. 3d 711, 715 (N.D. Cal. 2021) (collecting cases). “[A[n unincorporated 4 association shall be deemed to be a citizen of the State where it has its principal 5 place of business and the State under whose laws it is organized.” 28 U.S.C. § 6 1332(d)(10). An entity’s citizenship is dual, not alternative, and both must be 7 considered in assessing minimal diversity. See Life of the S. Ins. Co. v. Carzell, 8 851 F.3d 1341, 1345 (11th Cir. 2017); Roberts v. Mars Petcare US, Inc., 874 F.3d 9 953, 957 (6th Cir. 2017); Johnson v. Advance Am., 549 F.3d 932, 936 (4th Cir. 10 2008). As a result, minimal diversity is not met if the sole defendant’s dual 11 citizenship includes the same citizenship as the plaintiff. 12 In determining an entity’s principal place of business, courts apply the 13 “nerve center” test, which considers where an entity’s “officers direct, control, and 14 coordinate the [entity’s] activities.” Hertz Corp. v. Friend, 559 U.S. 77, 92–93 15 (2010). The principal place of business “should normally be the place where the 16 corporation maintains its headquarters – provided that the headquarters is the 17 actual center of direction, control, and coordination[.]” Id. at 93. The burden in 18 establishing diversity jurisdiction is on the party asserting it. Id. at 96. 19 20 The Court finds that Defendant, as a limited liability company, is an “unincorporated association” under CAFA whose dual citizenship is determined by ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR REMAND ~ 4 Case 2:23-cv-00004-TOR ECF No. 14 filed 04/20/23 PageID.425 Page 5 of 6 1 location of the principle place of business and location under whose laws it is 2 organized. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(10). Defendant asserts it is a limited liability 3 company formed in the State of Delaware with corporate headquarters in Yardley, 4 Pennsylvania. ECF Nos. 1 at 2, ¶ 1; 10 at 2, ¶¶ 4–5. In support of the principal 5 place of business, Defendant asserts that the parent company, Jubilant Pharma, 6 “provides ultimate direction, control, and strategy for the business activities of 7 [Defendant], including governing oversight of [Defendant’s] local administration, 8 management, and operations” out of Pennsylvania. ECF No. 10 at 3, ¶ 8. 9 Defendant alleges that the administrators in Spokane who perform the day-to-day 10 operational oversight of the business “ultimately report to Jubilant Pharma’s 11 CEO”. Id., ¶ 9. 12 However, Plaintiffs contend that Defendant cannot solely rely on the 13 location and activities of its parent company. ECF Nos. 6, 12. While the burden 14 remains on Defendant, Plaintiffs allege Defendant operates a facility in 15 Washington, maintains a separate company entity from Jubilant Pharma, is 16 registered with the Washington Secretary of State which lists the office mailing 17 address, registered agent, Governor identity and location in Washington, and many 18 of the higher-level management employees are located in Spokane, according to 19 Defendant’s organizational chart. ECF Nos. 6 at 10–11; 12 at 6–7. 20 ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR REMAND ~ 5 Case 2:23-cv-00004-TOR 1 ECF No. 14 filed 04/20/23 PageID.426 Page 6 of 6 Defendant has provided no information beyond conclusory allegations that 2 Defendant is ultimately controlled by its parent company out of Pennsylvania. In 3 contrast, Plaintiffs listed various operations and connections in Washington by 4 Defendant, who is a separate entity from the parent company. Defendant has failed 5 to carry its burden in establishing that Pennsylvania is its principal place of 6 business, i.e. the nerve center or actual center of direction, control, and 7 coordination. Hertz, 559 U.S. at 93. Because the Court cannot determine that 8 Defendant’s principal place of business is diverse from Plaintiffs’ Washington 9 citizenship, Defendant failed to meet its burden in establishing minimal diversity 10 jurisdiction. As this finding is dispositive to remand, the Court declines to reach 11 the remaining arguments as to timeliness. Plaintiffs’ Motion to Remand is granted. 12 ACCORDINGLY, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 13 1. Plaintiffs’ Motion for Remand (ECF No. 6) is GRANTED. 14 2. This action is REMANDED to Spokane County Superior Court. 15 3. Each party to bear their own costs and fees. 16 The District Court Executive is directed to enter this Order, furnish copies to 17 counsel, and CLOSE the file. 18 DATED April 20, 2023. 19 20 THOMAS O. RICE United States District Judge ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR REMAND ~ 6
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
