Doretha LeFore v. The Westin Los Angeles Airport, et al

Filing 9

MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION by Judge Christina A. Snyder. Plaintiff is hereby ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE in writing on or before June 2, 2014, why this action should not be remanded to LosAngeles County Superior Court. Starwood shall have leave to file a reply on or before June 9, 2014. SEE ORDER. (im)

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

2:14-cv-03557-CAS(FFMx)

Title

DORETHA LEFORE V. THE WESTIN LOS ANGELES AIRPORT, ET
AL.

Present: The Honorable

Date

May 19, 2014

CHRISTINA A. SNYDER

Catherine Jeang
Deputy Clerk

Not Present
Court Reporter / Recorder

N/A
Tape No.

Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs:

Attorneys Present for Defendants

Not Present

Not Present

Proceedings:

I.

(In Chambers:) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: LACK OF
SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Doretha Lefore filed this action in Los Angeles County Superior Court on
February 18, 2014, against defendants Westin Los Angeles Airport, and Starwood Hotels
& Resorts Worldwide, Inc. (“Starwood”). Dkt. #1. The complaint asserts claims for age
discrimination, retaliation, hostile work environment, failure to prevent discrimination
and retaliation, and wrongful termination. All of plaintiff’s claims appear to be grounded
in California law, and not federal law. Plaintiff does not allege her state of citizenship, or
the citizenship of defendants.
Starwood filed a notice of removal in this Court on May 8, 2014, contending that
this Court has original jurisdiction over this action based on diversity of citizenship. Id.
Starwood avers that it is a is a Maryland corporation with its principal place of business
in Connecticut. Id. Starwood further states that the Westin Hotel located at Los Angeles
Airport is not a legally existent entity, but rather a hotel property. Id. Thus, according to
Starwood, it is the only properly named defendant in this action. Id. Starwood further
contends that plaintiff is a citizen of California, based on the address listed on the
“Charge of Discrimination” that plaintiff filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission against the Westin Los Angeles Airport prior to commencing this action. Id.

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 1 of 3

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

2:14-cv-03557-CAS(FFMx)

Title

DORETHA LEFORE V. THE WESTIN LOS ANGELES AIRPORT, ET
AL.

II.

Date

May 19, 2014

DISCUSSION

Removal is proper where the federal courts have original jurisdiction over an
action brought in state court. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a), the
federal courts have original jurisdiction over state law actions only where the amount in
controversy exceeds $75,000 and the action is between parties of diverse citizenship.
Diversity jurisdiction requires complete diversity between the parties—each defendant
must be a citizen of a different state from each plaintiff.” In re Digimarc Corp.
Derivative Litigation, 549 F.3d 1223, 1234 (9th Cir. 2008) (citations omitted). A
corporation is a citizen of its state of incorporation and the state in which its principal
place of business is located. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1); 13F Charles A. Wright & Arthur R.
Miller, et al., Fed. Practice and Procedure § 3624 (3d ed.).
The representations in Starwood’s notice of removal appear to support the
conclusion that plaintiff is a citizen of California. Starwood also contends that the only
legally cognizable entity named as a defendant, namely, Starwood, is a citizen of
Maryland and Connecticut.1 However, while the face of the complaint names only
Starwood and the Westin Los Angeles as defendants, the complaint also identifies
numerous other individuals under the heading “parties.” In this regard, the complaint
refers to Reina Torres, Jennifer Aparicio, Romeo Aguinaldo, Patrick Dougherty, and Tim
McDonald as “parties,” Compl. ¶¶ 3-7, without explicitly stating whether plaintiff intends
to name these individuals as defendants. Moreover, neither the complaint nor the notice
of removal identifies the state of citizenship of any of these individuals.
Thus, it appears that there is some ambiguity in the complaint as to who the named
defendants are in this action. This ambiguity bears on this Court’s jurisdiction, because,
if plaintiff intends to name any of these individuals as defendants, and one or more of
these individuals is a citizen of California, then diversity of citizenship does not exist, and
this Court therefore lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this action.

1

The Court expresses no view as to the merit of this contention, but assumes it to
be true for the purposes of this order.
CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 2 of 3

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

2:14-cv-03557-CAS(FFMx)

Title

DORETHA LEFORE V. THE WESTIN LOS ANGELES AIRPORT, ET
AL.

III.

Date

May 19, 2014

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, plaintiff is hereby ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE in
writing on or before June 2, 2014, why this action should not be remanded to Los
Angeles County Superior Court. Specifically, plaintiff is directed to clarify whether she
intends to name any or all of Reina Torres, Jennifer Aparicio, Romeo Aguinaldo, Patrick
Dougherty, and Tim McDonald as defendants in this action. If it is plaintiff’s intention to
name any of these individuals as defendants, plaintiff is directed to file an amended
complaint concurrently with her response to this order to show cause, which explicitly
names any or all of these individuals as defendants, and also explicitly alleges their
respective places of citizenship. Starwood shall have leave to file a reply on or before
June 9, 2014.
The parties’ submissions shall not exceed five pages. This page limit shall not
apply to an amended complaint, if one is filed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
00
Initials of Preparer

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

:

00

CMJ

Page 3 of 3