Ana Quinonez et al v. Mercado Capital, Inc. et al

Filing 17

MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) Order DENYING Plaintiffs' motion to remand by Judge Philip S. Gutierrez denying 10 Motion to Remand Case to State Court: Order DENYING Plaintiffs' motion to remand. (see document for further details) (bm)

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

CV 15-1676 PSG (AGRx)

Title

Ana Quinonez, et al. v. Mercado Capital Inc., et al.

Present: The Honorable

Date

May 18, 2015

Philip S. Gutierrez, United States District Judge

Wendy Hernandez

Not Reported

Deputy Clerk

Court Reporter

Attorneys Present for Plaintiff(s):

Attorneys Present for Defendant(s):

Not Present

Not Present

Proceedings (In Chambers):

Order DENYING Plaintiffs’ motion to remand.

Before the Court is Plaintiffs Ana Quinonez (“Quinonez”) and Ana Reyes’s (“Reyes”)
(collectively, “Plaintiffs”) motion to remand. Dkt. # 10. The Court finds the matter appropriate
for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 78; L.R. 7-15. After considering the
moving, opposing, and reply papers, the Court DENIES the motion.
I.

Background

On December 23, 2014, Plaintiffs brought this action against Defendants Mercado
Capital, Inc.; Blue Land Transportation, Inc.; Coastal Pacific Xpress, Inc.; All American Agents
of Process; Process Service Agent Company, Inc.; and Branko Vukmirovic (collectively,
“Defendants”) in Los Angeles Superior Court. See Compl.1 Plaintiffs were driving on the
freeway when a freight truck operated by Defendant Vukmirovic collided with them. See id. at
7. Plaintiffs assert claims for: (1) negligence; and (2) motor vehicle property damage and
personal injury. See id.
On March 6, 2015, Defendants Mercado Capital Inc., Blue Land Transportation, Inc., and
Coastal Pacific Xpress, Inc. (“Responding Defendants”) removed this action to this Court on the
basis of diversity jurisdiction. See Not. of Removal.
Plaintiffs now move to remand this case. Dkt. # 10.

On May 4, 2015, Plaintiffs dismissed Process Service Agent Company, Inc. and All American
Agents of Process from this action. Dkt. # 13.
1

1

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

CV 15-1676 PSG (AGRx)

Title

Ana Quinonez, et al. v. Mercado Capital Inc., et al.

II.

Date

May 18, 2015

Legal Standard

Generally, subject matter jurisdiction is based on the presence of a federal question, see
28 U.S.C. § 1331, or on complete diversity between the parties, see 28 U.S.C. § 1332. For a
federal court to exercise diversity jurisdiction, there must be “complete” diversity between the
parties and the $75,000 amount in controversy requirement must be met. See Strawbridge v.
Curtis, 7 U.S. 267, 267 (3 Cranch) (1806); 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a).
If at any time before the entry of final judgment it appears that the Court lacks subject
matter jurisdiction over a case removed from state court, it must remand the action to state court.
See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c); Int’l Primate Prot. League v. Adm’rs of Tulane Educ. Fund, 500 U.S.
72, 87 (1991). There is a “strong presumption” against removal jurisdiction, and the party
seeking removal always has the burden of establishing that removal is proper. Hunter v. Philip
Morris USA, 582 F.3d 1039, 1042 (9th Cir. 2009). If there is any ambiguity as to the propriety
of removal, federal jurisdiction must be rejected. See id.
III.

Discussion

Plaintiffs assert two separate arguments in support of their motion to remand. The Court
will address each argument in turn.
A.

Complete Diversity

First, Plaintiffs argue that complete diversity is lacking because Plaintiffs and Defendant
Mercado Capital, Inc. are citizens of California. Mot. 2:27-3:3. The Responding Defendants
argue that Defendant Mercado Capital, Inc. is a citizen of Canada. See Opp. 4:2-5:7.
“[A] corporation shall be deemed to be a citizen of every State and foreign state by which
it has been incorporated and of the State or foreign state where it has its principal place of
business.” 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1). For diversity purposes, a corporation’s principal place of
business is “the place where the corporation’s high level officers direct, control, and coordinate
the corporation’s activities.” Hertz Corp. v. Friend, 559 U.S. 77, 80-81 (2010).
To support their argument, Plaintiffs submit a Business Entity Detail document from the
California Secretary of State describing an entity named “Mercado Capital, Inc.” as a suspended
California entity. See Declaration of Steven Hilst (“Hilst Decl.”), Ex. A. Furthermore, Plaintiff
argues that the Responding Defendants have not met their burden of proving that complete
diversity exists because they provide no detail about “the number of its employees or agents in
California” or “how much of its income is generated from its California entity.” Mot. 8:10-19.

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

CV 15-1676 PSG (AGRx)

Date

Title

May 18, 2015

Ana Quinonez, et al. v. Mercado Capital Inc., et al.

The Responding Defendants counter that “the defendant in this action, Mercado Capital,
Inc., has no relation to the suspended California corporation with the same name.” Opp. 5:2-3.
They argue that the correct Mercado Capital, Inc. is incorporated in Canada with its principal
place of business in Canada. Id. 5:4-7.
After reviewing the evidence submitted by the Responding Defendants, the Court agrees
that they have met their burden of proving that complete diversity exists between the parties.
To support their argument, the Responding Defendants submit a declaration from Ruth
Hale (“Hale Decl.”), an authorized representative of Mercado Capital, Inc., in which she declares
that the Mercado Capital, Inc. at issue is a Canadian corporation with its principal place of
business in Calgary, Alberta. Hale Decl. ¶ 2. Further, the declaration alleges that Mercado is
entirely unrelated to the Californian entity also named Mercado Capital, Inc. Id. ¶ 4.
Defendants attach a copy of Mercado Capital Corporation’s corporate registration paperwork
stating that it is a Canadian corporation. Hale Decl., Ex. A. Hale also declares that Mercado
Capital, Inc. does not have “any offices, employees, or other corporate infrastructures in
California.” Id. ¶ 4. That the corporate paperwork submitted by the Responding Defendants
refers to “Mercado Capital Corporation” and not “Mercado Capital, Inc.” does not defeat the
Responding Defendants’ argument. Furthermore, Plaintiff’s attack of Hale’s authority to “make
binding representations on behalf of Mercado Capital, Inc.” based on her position as an
“Account Manager,” without more, is baseless. See Reply 4:14-20.
Accordingly, the Court finds that there is complete diversity between the parties.
B.

Amount in Controversy

Plaintiff’s second argument is that the Responding Defendants fail to show that the
amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. This argument fails.
In their Opposition, the Responding Defendants have included policy limits demands that
Plaintiffs made demanding Defendants’ policy limits in relation to the accident on which this
action is based. Declaration of Max Gavron (“Gavron Decl.”) ¶2, Ex. B. In this demand,
Plaintiffs detail “$112,810.77 in medical special damages for [Reyes], and $241,400.85 in
medical special damages for [Quinonez].” See Opp. 6:15-18; see also Gavron Decl., Ex. B. In
the Complaint, Plaintiffs seek damages for past and future medical expenses, past, present, and
future loss of earnings, and loss of earning capacity. See Compl. Tellingly, Plaintiffs offer no
3

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

CV 15-1676 PSG (AGRx)

Title

Date

May 18, 2015

Ana Quinonez, et al. v. Mercado Capital Inc., et al.

arguments in reply to this evidence. See generally Reply. The Court is convinced that the
Responding Defendants have met their burden of showing that the amount of controversy
exceeds $75,000.
Accordingly, the Court agrees with Defendants that federal diversity jurisdiction exists in
this matter.
IV.

Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs’ motion to remand.
IT IS SO ORDERED.