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