Federal Court Gives Defendant Chance to Cure Defective Diversity Pleading in Airbnb Suit

PHILADELPHIA (LN) — U.S. District Judge Kearney issued an order on March 25 granting a removing defendant leave to cure a defective notice of removal that invoked diversity jurisdiction without alleging the specific citizenship of individual parties or the members of limited liability companies.

The order in Bullock v. Airbnb, Inc. stems from a removal notice filed by defendant Olivia Gonzalez. The notice asserted jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) but failed to allege the citizenship of the individual defendants or the members of the LLC and limited partnership defendants.

Gonzalez alleged that plaintiff Breon Bullock resides in Philadelphia and that she resides in Texas. She further claimed Airbnb is a Delaware corporation with a principal place of business in California, while UDR Cool Springs I LLC and Cool Springs II LP are entities organized outside Pennsylvania with principal places of business in Texas.

The court noted that while an individual is a citizen of their domicile, Gonzalez only alleged the residence of the individual parties. Citing Third Circuit precedent, the order explained that domicile requires an objective physical presence coupled with a subjective intention to remain indefinitely, and residence is not synonymous with domicile.

Regarding the business entities, the order stated that the citizenship of an LLC is determined by the citizenship of its members, and the citizenship of a limited partnership includes all partners. The court found it had no present basis to determine the citizenship of the LLCs or the limited partnership without knowing the citizenship of their respective members.

Gonzalez was given until March 30 to either stipulate to remand, file an amended notice properly pleading the parties' citizenship, or show cause in a memorandum not exceeding seven pages why the case should not be remanded for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

The court emphasized that removal statutes are strictly construed with all doubts resolved in favor of remand. Citing Third Circuit precedent, the order stated that the burden rests on the removing party to show at all stages that the case is properly before the federal court.