Kevin Michael Friel et al v. General Motors LLC et al

Filing 25

ORDER by Judge Dale S. Fischer DENYING Plaintiffs' Motion to Remand (Dkt. #14 ) and Requiring Defendant to Show Cause re Subject Matter Jurisdiction. See Order for specifics. (jp)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KEVIN MICHAEL FRIEL and
SHIRLEY RAYE FRIEL,
Plaintiffs,
v.
GENERAL MOTORS, LLC, a
limited liability company; and
DOES 1 through 10, inclusive,
Defendants.

No. 2:23-cv-06990-DSF-PVC
Order DENYING Plaintiffs’
Motion to Remand (Dkt. 14) and
Requiring Defendant to Show
Cause re Subject Matter
Jurisdiction

Plaintiffs move for remand to California Superior Court.
Defendant General Motors LLC objects, arguing removal was
substantively and procedurally proper. It is not clear to the Court what
purpose the motion serves, as there is virtually no doubt that the Court
has subject matter jurisdiction. Plaintiffs do not contend removal was
improper, but instead contend GM has failed to prove that all the
requirements for removal jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441 and
1446 are present.
Like the plaintiff in Vidana v. General Motors LLC, No. 2:23-cv06986-MCS-AGR at dkt. 15, Plaintiffs here have failed to comply with
the letter and spirit of Local Rule 7-5, which requires them to provide
“[a] brief but complete memorandum in support [of the motion] and the

points and authorities upon which [they] will rely.” Therefore, the
motion is denied on procedural grounds. 1
However, federal courts “are courts of limited jurisdiction” and
“possess only that power authorized by Constitution and statute.”
Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994).
The Court therefore has an independent obligation to ensure that it has
subject matter jurisdiction. Having reviewed the pleadings, the Court
easily finds that GM has established that removal was timely, that the
amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, and that Plaintiffs are citizens
of California.
As Plaintiffs correctly point out, however, GM has failed to prove
its citizenship sufficiently. A corporation is a citizen of both its state of
incorporation and the state in which its principal place of business is
located. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1). A corporation’s “principal place of
business” refers to “the place where a corporation’s officers direct,
control, and coordinate the corporation’s activities.” Hertz Corp. v.
Friend, 559 U.S. 77, 92-93 (2010). In the case of an LLC, citizenship of
each of the owners must be established. Though there is no actual
doubt that GM and its owners are not citizens of California, the Court
agrees with Plaintiffs that GM has not established that fact with
admissible evidence.
GM’s in-house counsel, Timothy M. Kuhn, declared under
penalty of perjury that GM and its owner, General Motors Holdings
LLC, as well as its owner, General Motors Company are Delaware
companies with their principal places of business is Michigan. Kuhn
states that he is responsible for managing GM’s breach of warranty
litigation but does not suggest why that would give him personal
knowledge of those facts. Although he states that the facts in his
declaration “are based upon [his] personal knowledge, on matters of
which he is informed, and documents he has reviewed,” he provides no
further details about the nature of his personal knowledge, the matters
of which he was informed, or the documents he has reviewed. Nor does
1

Plaintiffs cannot wait for their reply to provide their specific concerns.

2

he provide any facts to support the conclusion that the “principal place
of business of the relevant entities is Michigan.” See Hertz Corp., 559
U.S. at92-93. While the Court has no doubt that GM is rarely called on
to establish these facts with specific evidence, it is nevertheless GM’s
burden to do so here.
Therefore, the Court orders GM to show cause why the case
should not be remanded for lack of jurisdiction. GM must file a written
response within 14 days of the filing of this Order establishing the
citizenship of GM with admissible evidence. Failure to meet GM’s
burden will result in remand.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: October 10, 2023

___________________________
Dale S. Fischer
United States District Judge

3