Vikeshini Lal Naidu v. Target Corporation et al
Filing
19
MINUTE ORDER (IN CHAMBERS) Order to Show Cause Re: Federal Jurisdiction by Magistrate Judge Brianna Fuller Mircheff. Defendants are ordered to show cause, in writing, NO LATER THAN FEBRUARY 5, 2025. Plaintiff may also file a statement of his position NO LATER THAN FEBRUARY 5, 2025. SEE ORDER FOR DETAILS. (ch)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
Case No.:
Title:
2:24-cv-10380-BFM
Date:
January 27, 2025
Vikeshini Lal Naidu v. Target Corp., et al.
================================================================
Present: The Honorable Brianna Fuller Mircheff, United States Magistrate Judge
Christianna Howard
Deputy Clerk
Attorneys Present for Plaintiff:
N/A
Proceedings:
N/A
Court Reporter / Recorder
Attorneys Present for Defendants:
N/A
(In Chambers) Order to Show Cause Re: Federal
Jurisdiction
Plaintiff Vikeshini Lal Naidu filed the Complaint in this case in Los
Angeles County Superior Court on October 30, 2024. (ECF 1 at 10.) Defendant
Target Corporation filed a notice of removal on December 2, 2024. (ECF 1 at
1.) Plaintiff is a California citizen. (ECF 1 at 10.) Target identified itself as a
corporate citizen of Minnesota (ECF 1 at 3.) The Complaint, however, also
names Defendant Bryan Vaught, a California citizen. (ECF 1 at 10.) Vaught’s
presence in the case appears to destroy diversity and divest the Court of
subject-matter jurisdiction.
Federal courts have subject-matter jurisdiction only over matters
authorized by the U.S. Constitution and Congress. See, e.g., Kokkonen v.
Guardian Life Ins. Co., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). This Court has a duty to
assess whether federal subject-matter jurisdiction exists and may consider the
issue sua sponte at any stage of the proceedings. See Allstate Ins. Co. v. Hughes,
358 F.3d 1089, 1093 (9th Cir. 2004); see also Ruhrgas AG v. Marathon Oil Co.,
526 U.S. 574, 583 (1999) (recognizing that “Article III generally requires a
Page 1 of 3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
Case No.:
Title:
2:24-cv-10380-BFM
Date:
January 27, 2025
Vikeshini Lal Naidu v. Target Corp., et al.
federal court to satisfy itself of its jurisdiction over the subject matter before it
considers the merits of a case”).
A federal district court has original jurisdiction over a civil action when
there is complete diversity of citizenship between the parties and the amount
in controversy exceeds $75,000. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). Complete diversity means
that each of the plaintiffs must be a citizen of a different state than each of the
defendants. Caterpillar Inc. v. Lewis, 519 U.S. 61, 68 (1996).
Here, it appears that both Plaintiff and Defendant Vaught are citizens
of California. In removing the case, Target claimed that Vaught was
improperly named in the case and suggested that the parties had contemplated
his dismissal. (ECF 1 at 4.) Vaught, however, remains in the case and has now
answered. See 28 U.S.C. § 1141(b)(2) (a civil action otherwise removable solely
on the basis of jurisdiction under §1332(a), may not be removed if any of the
defendants is a citizen of the state in which the action is brought).
Accordingly, Defendants are ordered to show cause, in writing, no later
than February 5, 2025, why the Court should not remand this action to state
court because there is not complete diversity of citizenship between the parties.
Page 2 of 3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
Case No.:
Title:
2:24-cv-10380-BFM
Date:
January 27, 2025
Vikeshini Lal Naidu v. Target Corp., et al.
Before doing so, the parties are ordered to meet and confer to determine
whether a stipulation to remand is appropriate and to discuss in detail their
respective positions if they disagree. In the event of disagreement, Plaintiff
may also file a statement of his position no later than February 5, 2025.
Failure by Defendants to timely comply with this order may result in remand.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
cc:
Counsel of Record
Initials of Preparer:
ch
Page 3 of 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?