John Ho v. The Kitchen for Exploring Foods LLC et al

Filing 8

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THIS ACTION SHOULD NOT BE REMANDED FOR UNTIMELY REMOVAL by Judge Dean D. Pregerson: The court notes that the Defendant has the burden ofestablishing removal jurisdiction. Accordingly, the court orders Defendant to file a brief, not to exceed ten pages, by Thursday, March 14, 2013, showing cause why this action should not be remanded for untimely removal. (lc)

Download PDF
1 2 O 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JOHN HO, 12 13 14 15 16 Plaintiff, v. THE KITCHEN FOR EXPLORING FOODS, LLC, a California Corporation, Defendants. ___________________________ ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. CV 13-00118 DDP (CWx) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THIS ACTION SHOULD NOT BE REMANDED FOR UNTIMELY REMOVAL 17 18 Removing Defendant The Kitchen For Exploring Foods, LLC is 19 ordered to show cause why this action should not be remanded to 20 state court for untimely removal. 21 complaint on June 15, 2012. 22 to this court on the basis of federal question jurisdiction. 23 (Notice of Removal 2.) 24 Plaintiff filed a discrimination On January 7, 2013, Defendant removed Under 28 U.S.C § 1441(b), a defendant may remove to federal 25 court “[a]ny civil action of which the district courts have 26 original jurisdiction founded on a claim or right arising under the 27 Constitution, treaties or laws of the United States . . . .” 28 Notice of removal “of a civil action or proceeding shall be filed 1 within thirty days after receipt by the defendant, through service 2 or otherwise, of a copy of an amended pleading . . . .” 3 1446(b). 4 28 U.S.C § Here, it appears Plaintiff’s summons and complaint was filed 5 on June 15, 2012, and Defendant removed on January 7, 2012. 6 (Notice of Removal 1; Exh. 1.) 7 service of process. 8 that service of process has been effectuated on Defendant as of 9 December 7, 2012.” Defendant fails to provide proof of Defendant alleges the parties “have stipulated (Id.) However, is it not clear to the court 10 that parties may stipulate to a jurisdictional requirement. 11 Moreover, Defendant fails to provide evidence of the stipulation. 12 The court notes that the Defendant has the burden of 13 establishing removal jurisdiction. 14 Defendant to file a brief, not to exceed ten pages, by Thursday, 15 March 14, 2013, showing cause why this action should not be 16 remanded for untimely removal. Accordingly, the court orders 17 18 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 20 21 22 Dated:March 1, 2013 DEAN D. PREGERSON United States District Judge 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

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.


Why Is My Information Online?