Clarence Collins v. Garfield Beach CVS, LLC et al

Filing 12

(IN CHAMBERS) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE by Judge Fernando M. Olguin. Response to Order to Show Cause due by 6/9/2017. (vdr)

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

CV 17-3375 FMO (GJSx)

Title

Clarence Collins v. Garfield Beach CVS, LLC

Present: The Honorable

Date

June 5, 2017

Fernando M. Olguin, United States District Judge

Vanessa Figueroa

None

Deputy Clerk

Court Reporter / Recorder

Tape No.

Attorney Present for Plaintiff(s):

Attorney Present for Defendant(s):

None Present

None Present

Proceedings:

(In Chambers) Further Order to Show Cause Re: Remand

On March 29, 2017, plaintiff Clarence Collins (“plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Garfield
Beach CVS, LLC (“Garfield Beach” or “defendant”)1 and “Does 1-75, inclusive” in Los Angeles
County Superior Court. (See Dkt. 1, Notice of Removal (“NOR”) at ¶ 1; Dkt 1-1, Exhibit A
(“Complaint")). On May 4, 2017, defendant removed that action on diversity jurisdiction grounds
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) and §§ 1441(a) & (b). (See Dkt. 1, NOR at ¶ 6).
Based on a review of the NOR and its attachments, the court issued an Order to Show
Cause Re: Remand (“OSC”) questioning whether it was proper to consider Defendant Doe 1 as
a “fictitious” defendant for diversity jurisdiction purposes and ordered the parties to “address[]
whether this action should be remanded for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.” (See Dkt. 11,
Court’s Order of May 24, 2017 at 1). The court ordered the parties to “identify Defendant Doe 1
and set forth the relevant facts in each party’s possession regarding the citizenship of Defendant
Doe 1.” (See id. at 1-2). Defendant was warned that failure to respond to the OSC by May 31,
2017, would “be deemed as consent to remand the action.” (See id.); see also Gaus v. Miles, Inc.,
980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992) ("The strong presumption against removal jurisdiction means
that the defendant always has the burden of establishing that removal is proper.") (internal
quotation marks omitted). As of the filing date of this order, defendant still has not responded to
the OSC. (See, generally, Dkt.). The court will give defendant one final opportunity to respond
to the OSC.
Based on the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED THAT:
1. No later than June 9, 2017, defendant shall file a Response to this OSC, not to exceed
five (5) pages, addressing whether this action should be remanded for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction. Among other things, defendant shall identify Defendant Doe 1 and set forth the
relevant facts in defendant’s possession regarding the citizenship of Defendant Doe 1.

1

The complaint erroneously identified defendant as “CVS Pharmacy, Inc.”

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 1 of 2

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

CV 17-3375 FMO (GJSx)

Date

Title

Clarence Collins v. Garfield Beach CVS, LLC

June 5, 2017

2. Failure by defendant to respond to this order to show cause by the deadline set forth
above shall be deemed as consent to the remand of the action for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction.

00
Initials of Preparer

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

:

00

vdr

Page 2 of 2