Mary A. Kan v. General Motors LLC

Filing 29

MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's Motion to Remand (Doc. 16 ) by Judge Josephine L. Staton. (See document for further information). (jp)

____________________________________________________________________________

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
Case No.: 5:23-cv-01731-JLS-RAO
Title: Mary A. Kan v. General Motors LLC

Date: October 24, 2023

Present: HONORABLE JOSEPHINE L. STATON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Gabby Garcia
Deputy Clerk
ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR PLAINTIFF:
Not Present

N/A
Court Reporter
ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR DEFENDANT:
Not Present

PROCEEDINGS: (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO REMAND (Doc. 16)
Before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to remand to state court. (Mot., Doc. 16.)
Defendant opposed, and Plaintiff replied. (Opp., Doc. 25; Reply, Doc. 26.) The Court
finds this matter appropriate for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. Civ. P.
78(b); C.D. Cal. R. 7-15. Accordingly, the hearing set for November 3, 2023 at 10:30
a.m., is VACATED. For the following reasons, the Court DENIES the Motion.
Plaintiff’s motion to remand contains no substantive argument that this Court
lacks diversity jurisdiction; it simply notes that Defendant, as the party that removed,
bears the burden of establishing subject-matter jurisdiction. (See Mot., Doc. 16.)
Defendant’s opposition, declaration, and exhibits establish that there is both complete
diversity between the parties and that diversity jurisdiction’s amount-in-controversy
requirement is met. (See Opp., Doc. 25 at 2–7; Purchase Agreement, Doc. 26-2; Kuhn
Decl., Doc. 26-3 ¶¶ 4–6; Related-Case 26(f) Report, Doc. 26-4 at 2.)
In its Reply, Defendant raises two arguments for the first time: (1) that Plaintiff
“provided no admissible evidence showing the date that Defendant was served with the
Complaint”; and (2) that the declaration of a lawyer in Defendant’s general counsel’s
office is insufficient to establish Defendant’s citizenship. (Reply, Doc. 26 at 3–5.) As an
_____________________________________________________________________________
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
1

____________________________________________________________________________

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
Case No.: 5:23-cv-01731-JLS-RAO
Title: Mary A. Kan v. General Motors LLC

Date: October 24, 2023

initial matter, Plaintiff forfeited these arguments. Zamani v. Carnes, 491 F.3d 990, 997
(9th Cir. 2007) (“The district court need not consider arguments raised for the first time
in a reply brief.”). In any event, both fail. First, Defendant attached to its notice of
removal a proof of service showing that Defendant received Plaintiff’s complaint on
August 7, 2023; Defendant did not need to reattach that proof of service when opposing
Plaintiff’s amorphous motion. (See State Court Documents, Doc. 1-2 at 15.) Second,
“[p]ersonal knowledge can be inferred from an affiant’s position” in a company, and the
Court assumes that a lawyer in Defendant’s general counsel’s office is aware of basic
corporate-structure facts, including where Defendant’s parent corporation is incorporated
and has its principal place of business. Self-Realization Fellowship Church v. Ananda
Church of Self-Realization, 206 F.3d 1322, 1330 (9th Cir. 2000).

Initials of Deputy Clerk: gga

_____________________________________________________________________________
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
2