Pacific American Fish Co., Inc. v. Linkfresh, Inc et al

Filing 26

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO REMAND 15 by Judge Manuel L. Real: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion to Remand is DENIED. SEE ORDER FOR FURTHER DETAILS. (clee)

1

NO JS-6

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11
12
13

PACIFIC AMERICAN FISH CO., INC., a
California corporation,

14

Plaintiff,

15
16
17

v.
LINKFRESH, INC., a Delaware corporation;
and DOES 1-10, inclusive,

18

Defendants.

) CASE NO. CV 17-6999-R
)
) ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
) MOTION TO REMAND
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

19
Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction,

20
21

which was filed on October 26, 2017. (Dkt. No. 15). Having been thoroughly briefed by both

22

parties, this Court took the matter under submission on November 30, 2017.
On August 15, 2017, Plaintiff filed a complaint in the Superior Court for the County of Los

23
24

Angeles alleging claims for promissory fraud, negligent misrepresentation, restitution after

25

rescission of contract, and breach of contract. On August 23, 2017, Defendant Linkfresh was

26

served with the complaint. On September 21, 2017, Defendant timely removed the case on the

27

basis of diversity jurisdiction.

28

\\\

1

A defendant may remove a civil action from state court if the action could have originally

2

been filed in federal court. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). “The burden of establishing federal subject

3

matter jurisdiction falls on the party invoking removal.” Marin Gen. Hosp. v. Modesto & Empire

4

Traction Co., 581 F.3d 941, 944 (9th Cir. 2009). The removing party must prove its jurisdictional

5

allegations by a preponderance of the evidence. Id. at 567. Courts “may view whatever evidence

6

has been submitted on the issue to determine whether subject matter jurisdiction exists….”

7

Jankins v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., No. CV 17-00887 BRO (AJW), 2017 WL 1181562, at *3

8

(C.D. Cal. March 29, 2017). The Federal Rules do not require that evidence in support of or in

9

opposition to a motion to remand be admissible. See id.

10

Federal courts have diversity jurisdiction over civil actions where the amount in

11

controversy exceeds $75,000 and there is complete diversity of citizenship between the parties. 28

12

U.S.C. § 1331. For purposes of diversity jurisdiction, a corporation is a citizen of the state in

13

which it is incorporated and the state where it has its principal place of business (“PPB”). Hertz

14

Corp. v. Friend, 559 U.S. 77, 80 (2010). A corporation’s PPB is the place where its officers

15

“direct, control, and coordinate the corporation’s activities.” Id. at 92-93. Diversity is determined

16

by the state of the facts at the time the action was filed. Grupo Dataflux v. Atlas Global Grp.,

17

L.P., 541 U.S. 567, 570 (2004).

18

Plaintiff alleges that it is a California corporation with its PPB in California. Plaintiff

19

alleges that Defendant is a Delaware corporation with its PPB in California. In its notice of

20

removal, Defendant states that it is a Delaware corporation and that its PPB is actually located in

21

Cambridge, England. The parties do not dispute that the amount in controversy is at least

22

$75,000.

23

Having reviewed the parties’ briefs and supporting evidence, the Court finds that

24

Defendant has established removal jurisdiction by a preponderance of the evidence. Defendant

25

affirms the following by declaration. At the time the Complaint was filed, and at all times since

26

then, Defendant has had seven members on its board of directors. Five of these directors reside in

27

the United Kingdom. All Board of Director meetings are held in the United Kingdom. At these

28

meetings, the Board of Directors makes strategic and operational decisions about Defendant’s

2

1

business. Defendant’s employment, accounting, and payroll activities are maintained and directed

2

out of the United Kingdom. There are no separate meetings held in the United States. Although

3

Defendant maintains a mailing address in California, Defendant’s officers direct, control, and

4

coordinate the corporation’s activities from Cambridge, England. Therefore, Defendant’s PPB is

5

in Cambridge, and the parties are diverse. Accordingly, this Court has diversity jurisdiction over

6

this action.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand is DENIED. (Dkt. No.

7
8

15).

9

Dated: January 10, 2018.

10
11
12
13

___________________________________
MANUEL L. REAL
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

3