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)
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?