Athena Avalos v. KinderCare Education LLC, et al

Filing 22

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY ACTION SHOULD NOT BE REMANDED TO LOS ANGELES COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION by Judge John F. Walter. Defendant is hereby ordered to show cause, in writing, no later than September 30, 2016, why t his action should not be remanded to Los Angeles County Superior Court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. No oral argument on this matter will be heard unless otherwise ordered by the Court. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 78; Local Rule 7-15. The Order will stand submitted upon the filing of the response to the Order to Show Cause. If Defendant files an Amended Notice of Removal which corrects the jurisdictional defects noted above on or before September 30, 2016, the Court will consider that a satisfactory response to the Order to Show Cause. Failure to respond to the Order to Show Cause will result in the remand of this action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. IT IS SO ORDERED. (jloz)

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

CV 16-6408-JFW (FFMx)

Title:

Athena Avalos -v- KinderCare Education LLC, et al.

Date: September 26, 2016

PRESENT:
HONORABLE JOHN F. WALTER, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Shannon Reilly
Courtroom Deputy

None Present
Court Reporter

ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR PLAINTIFFS:
None
PROCEEDINGS (IN CHAMBERS):

ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR DEFENDANTS:
None

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY ACTION SHOULD
NOT BE REMANDED TO LOS ANGELES COUNTY
SUPERIOR COURT FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER
JURISDICTION

On May 6, 2016, Plaintiff Athena Avalos (“Plaintiff”) filed a Complaint against Defendant
KinderCare Education LLC f/k/a Knowledge Universe Education LLC (“Defendant”) in Los Angeles
County Superior Court. On August 25, 2016, Defendant filed a Notice of Removal of Action Under
28 U.S.C. Section 1441(b) (“Notice of Removal”), alleging that this Court has jurisdiction pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a).
Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, having subject matter jurisdiction only over
matters authorized by the Constitution and Congress. See Bender v. Williamsport Area School
District, 475 U.S. 534, 541 (1986). “Because of the Congressional purpose to restrict the
jurisdiction of the federal courts on removal, the statute is strictly construed, and federal jurisdiction
must be rejected if there is any doubt as to the right of removal in the first instance.” Duncan v.
Stuetzle, 76 F.3d 1480, 1485 (9th Cir. 1996) (citations and quotations omitted). There is a strong
presumption that the Court is without jurisdiction unless the contrary affirmatively appears. See
Fifty Associates v. Prudential Insurance Company of America, 446 F.2d 1187, 1190 (9th Cir.
1990). As the party invoking federal jurisdiction, Defendant bears the burden of demonstrating that
removal is proper. See, e.g., Gaus v. Miles, 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992); Emrich v. Touche
Ross & Co., 846 F.2d 1190, 1195 (9th Cir. 1988).
Diversity jurisdiction founded under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) requires that (1) all plaintiffs be of
different citizenship than all defendants, and (2) the amount in controversy exceed $75,000. See
28 U.S.C. § 1332. For the purposes of diversity jurisdiction, a limited liability company is a citizen
of every state of which its members are citizens. See, e.g., Johnson v. Columbia Properties
Anchorage, LP, 437 F.3d 894, 899 (9th Cir. 2006) (“[L]ike a partnership, an LLC is a citizen of
Page 1 of 2

Initials of Deputy Clerk sr

every state of which its owners/members are citizens.”). A corporation is a citizen of any state
where it is incorporated and of the state where it has its principal place of business. 28 U.S.C. §
1332(c). Although Defendant, a limited liability company, attempts to allege the citizenship of its
members, it has failed, for example, to allege the principal place of business of KUEHG Corp.
Notice of Removal at ¶ 6. There also appear to be other errors. For example, Defendant identifies
KinderCare Education Holdings LLC as a Delaware corporation and fails to explain Knowledge
Universe Education Holdings Inc.’s relationship to Defendant or its members.
Accordingly, Defendant is hereby ordered to show cause, in writing, no later than
September 30, 2016, why this action should not be remanded to Los Angeles County Superior
Court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. No oral argument on this matter will be heard unless
otherwise ordered by the Court. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 78; Local Rule 7-15. The Order will stand
submitted upon the filing of the response to the Order to Show Cause. If Defendant files an
Amended Notice of Removal which corrects the jurisdictional defects noted above on or before
September 30, 2016, the Court will consider that a satisfactory response to the Order to Show
Cause. Failure to respond to the Order to Show Cause will result in the remand of this action for
lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Page 2 of 2

Initials of Deputy Clerk sr