Robert Magnet v. Franck's Lab Inc et al

Filing 6

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THIS COURT SHOULD NOT REMAND FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION by Judge Otis D. Wright, II: Defendants to show cause in writing no later than October 31, 2013, why this action should not be remanded for lack of subject m atter jurisdiction. Defendants must clearly establish diversity of citizenship. Plaintiff Robert Magnet may file a simultaneous brief on this matter, if he so chooses. No oral argument on this matter will be heard unless ordered by the Court. (lc). Modified on 10/21/2013 .(lc).

O

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ROBERT MAGNET,

12
13
14
15
16
17
18

v.

Plaintiff,

FRANCK’S LAB, INC., dba FRANCK’S
COMPOUNDING LAB, FRANCK’S
PHARMACY, INC., FRANCK’S
MANAGEMENT, LLC, FRANCK’S
HEALTHY LIFESTYLES, LLC, KENT
W. SMALL, M.D.; MACULA & RETINA
INSTITUTE and DOES 1 through 300,
inclusive,

Case No. 2:13-cv-7602-ODW (MANx)
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY
THIS COURT SHOULD NOT
REMAND FOR LACK OF SUBJECT
MATTER JURISDICTION

Defendants.

19
20

The Court has received the Notice of Removal from Defendants Franck’s Lab,

21

Inc., dba Franck’s Compounding Lab; Franck’s Pharmacy, Inc.; Franck’s Healthy

22

Lifestyles, LLC; Paul W. Franck; and Anthony James Campbell (“Defendants”).

23

However, the Court is not convinced that it has subject matter jurisdiction over this

24

action. When a defendant attempts to remove an action from state court, the Court is

25

“obligated to consider sua sponte whether we have subject matter jurisdiction” over

26

the instant claims. Valdez v. Allstate Ins. Co., 372 F.3d 1115, 1116 (9th Cir. 2004).

27

Defendants cite diversity of citizenship as a basis of subject matter jurisdiction

28

under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Defendants’ Notice of Removal asserts that Defendants are

1

all citizens of the State of Florida and that “Plaintiff is a resident of the County of Los

2

Angles, State of California.” (Notice of Removal ¶ 2.) Nevertheless, for the purposes

3

of complete diversity, a natural person’s citizenship is “determined by [his] state of

4

domicile, not [his] state of residence.” Kantor v. Warner-Lambert Co., 265 F.3d 853,

5

857 (9th Cir. 2001).

6

citizenship on removal in light of the strong presumption against removal jurisdiction.

7

See id. at 857. After carefully examining Defendants’ Notice of Removal, it appears

8

that Defendants cite no objective facts beyond a statement of residency to establish

9

Plaintiff Robert Magnet’s domicile.

Residency allegations alone are inadequate to establish

Accordingly, the Court hereby ORDERS

10

Defendants to show cause in writing no later than October 31, 2013, why this action

11

should not be remanded for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Defendants must

12

clearly establish diversity of citizenship.

13

simultaneous brief on this matter, if he so chooses. No oral argument on this matter

14

will be heard unless ordered by the Court.

Plaintiff Robert Magnet may file a

15
16
17

IT IS SO ORDERED.

18
19

October 21, 2013

20
21
22

____________________________________
OTIS D. WRIGHT, II
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

23
24
25
26
27
28

2