Mary Fox et al v. J P Morgan Chase Bank et al

Filing 14

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THIS CASE SHOULD NOT BE REMANDED FOR LACKOF JURISDICTION by Judge Dean D. Pregerson: The court orders the parties to file cross-briefs, not to exceed ten pages, within 14 days of the date of this Order, to show cause why this action should not be remanded to state court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The court will interpreteither partys failure to file such motion as consent to remand. (lc)

1
2

O

3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12

MARY FOX, ROSALIE CIRILLO,
CAROLINE ELLIOTT, IRMA
SALGADO, ANN NAJPAUER, LEILA
CREEK,

13
Plaintiffs,
14
v.
15
16

J.P. MORGAN CHASE BANK, a
busines entity, form
unknown; BRETT ANDRIOTTI,

17
Defendants.
18
___________________________

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. CV 11-06865 DDP (JCx)
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THIS CASE
SHOULD NOT BE REMANDED FOR LACK
OF JURISDICTION

19
20

The court orders the parties to show cause why this case

21

should not be remanded for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

22

Plaintiffs, citizens of California, filed suit in California

23

Superior Court against Defendants asserting purely state law

24

claims.

25

alleges it is a citizen of Ohio. (Notice of Removal; Ex. A.)

Defendant J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. (“J.P. Morgan”)

26

Defendant filed its notice of removal on August 19, 2011,

27

asserting that this Court has diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28

28

U.S.C. §§ 1332.

In its notice of removal, J.P. Morgan asserts that

1

individual defendant Brett Andriotti (“Andriotti”), a California

2

citizen, is a sham defendant.

3

(Notice of Removal at 1.)

A defendant may remove a case from state court to federal

4

court if the case could have originally been filed in federal

5

court.

6

F.2d 787, 789 (9th Cir. 1977).

7

original jurisdiction of all civil actions where the matter in

8

controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000 . . . and is

9

between . . . citizens of different States[.]”

28 U.S.C. § 1441(a); see also Snow v. Ford Motor Co., 561
“The district courts shall have

28 U.S.C.

10

§ 1332(a)(1).

11

removal jurisdiction, and federal jurisdiction must be rejected if

12

any doubt exists as to the propriety of removal.

13

Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992).

14

The removal statute is strictly construed against

Gaus v. Miles,

Plaintiffs’ complaint refers to Defendant Brett Andriotti, as

15

well as other individuals who also appear to be California citizens

16

and are alleged to have engaged in conduct similar to Andriotti’s.

17

Of these individuals, only Andriotti is named as a defendant, and

18

then only by one of the six Plaintiffs in one of the five causes of

19

action.

20

Andriotti, with respect to multiple Plaintiffs(See, e.g. Complaint

21

¶¶ 31, 34, 46, 80), raises concerns with the court that Andriotti

22

is not a sham defendant, and that complete diversity of citizenship

23

may not in fact exist.

24

Nevertheless, the complaint’s numerous references to

The court therefore orders the parties to file cross-briefs,

25

not to exceed ten pages, within 14 days of the date of this Order,

26

to show cause why this action should not be remanded to state court

27

///

28

///
2

1

for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

The court will interpret

2

either party’s failure to file such motion as consent to remand.

3

IT IS SO ORDERED.

4
5
6

Dated: September 2, 2011
DEAN D. PREGERSON
United States District Judge

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3