Sandra White v. Maxim Healthcare Services Inc

Filing 8

MINUTES OF IN CHAMBERS - ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THIS ACTION SHOULD NOT BE REMANDED TO STATE COURT FOR UNTIMELY REMOVAL by Judge Dolly M. Gee: The parties are hereby ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE why this action should not be remanded to state court for untimely removal. The parties shall file their responses, if any, on or before 3/21/2013. Failure to file a timely response will result in the remand of this action to state court. Court Reporter: Not Reported. (gk)

O
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL
Case No.

CV 13-01672 DMG (RZx)

Date

Title Sandra White v. Maxim Healthcare Services Inc.
Present: The Honorable

March 14, 2013
Page

1 of 1

DOLLY M. GEE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

VALENCIA VALLERY
Deputy Clerk

NOT REPORTED
Court Reporter

Attorneys Present for Plaintiff(s)
None Present

Attorneys Present for Defendant(s)
None Present

Proceedings: IN CHAMBERS—ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THIS ACTION
SHOULD NOT BE REMANDED TO STATE COURT FOR UNTIMELY
REMOVAL
On September 21, 2012, Plaintiff Sandra White filed a complaint in Los Angeles County
Superior Court against Defendant Maxim Healthcare Services, Inc. raising causes of action under
Cal. Gov’t Code §§ 12940 and 12945.2. On March 8, 2013, Defendant removed the action to
this Court, on the basis of diversity jurisdiction [Doc. # 1].
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b), a case may be removed to federal court within 30 days of the
pleading from which subject matter jurisdiction may be first ascertained. According to the
complaint, Plaintiff is a California resident. (Compl. ¶ 1.) Defendant is a citizen of Maryland.
(Notice of Removal ¶¶ 16-20.) Defendant claims that it was only able to ascertain Plaintiff’s
California citizenship after February 7, 2013, when it received a response to its request for
admission. Defendant argues that because the complaint only stated Plaintiff’s residency and not
her citizenship, Defendant could not have known that Plaintiff was not a Maryland citizen,
making her a diverse party.
The Court finds this rationale unpersuasive. Having alleged that Plaintiff is a resident of
California, the complaint never implied that Plaintiff was anything other than a California
citizen. Defendant could have readily drawn the inference of Plaintiff’s citizenship outside of
Maryland from the “four corners of the applicable pleading[].” Harris v. Bankers Life & Cas.
Co., 425 F.3d 689, 694 (9th Cir. 2005).
In light of the foregoing, the parties are hereby ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE why
this action should not be remanded to state court for untimely removal. The parties shall file
their responses, if any, on or before March 21, 2013. Failure to file a timely response will result
in the remand of this action to state court.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
CV-90

CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL

Initials of Deputy Clerk ms