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

Filing 26


Download PDF
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

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?