Claudia Estrada v. Meridian Senior Living, LLC, et al

Filing 13

MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE by Judge Andrew J. Guilford. As such, the Court ORDERS the defendants to show cause in writingwithin 14 days of this order--why this action should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. (see document for details). (dro)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.

SACV 17-00825 AG (JDEx)

Title

CLAUDIA ESTRADA v. MERIDIAN SENIOR LIVING, LLC ET AL.

Present: The Honorable

May 18, 2017

ANDREW J. GUILFORD

Lisa Bredahl
Deputy Clerk
Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs:
Proceedings:

Date

Not Present
Court Reporter / Recorder

Tape No.

Attorneys Present for Defendants:

[IN CHAMBERS] ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

“Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction,” and they possess “only that power
authorized by Constitution and statute.” Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of America, 511 U.S.
375, 377 (1994). Defendants Meridian Senior Living, LLC, MSL LLC, MSL II LLC, and
Mary Mims-Burris invoked that limited jurisdiction when they filed a notice of removal in
this Court. See id. (“It is to be presumed that a cause lies outside of [a federal court’s] limited
jurisdiction,” and “the burden of establishing the contrary rests upon the party asserting
jurisdiction.”).
Plaintiff Claudia Estrada’s claims concern state law—for example, pregnancy discrimination,
disability discrimination, retaliation, wrongful termination, and intentional infliction of
emotional distress. (Compl., Dkt. No. 3-1.) So federal question jurisdiction obviously doesn’t
exist here. Instead, Defendants say this Court has “diversity jurisdiction.” See U.S. Const. art.
III, § 2 (“The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases . . . between Citizens of different
States.”); 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) (“The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil
actions where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of
interests and costs, and is between . . . citizens of different States.”).
The Court now identifies two areas of concern regarding its jurisdiction.
(1) The plaintiff appears to be a California citizen, and almost all the defendants are citizens
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.

SACV 17-00825 AG (JDEx)

Date

May 18, 2017

Title

CLAUDIA ESTRADA v. MERIDIAN SENIOR LIVING, LLC ET AL.

of either North Carolina or Maryland; except for Mims-Burriss, who is also a California
citizen. (Notice of Removal, Dkt. No. 1, at 3–4.) But the defendants contend that
“Mims-Burris is a sham defendant and should be disregarded for purposes of determining
jurisdiction.” (Id. at 5.) For the defendants to succeed on this “fraudulent joinder” argument,
they must convince the Court that after resolving “all disputed questions of fact and all
ambiguities in the controlling state law . . . in the plaintiff’s favor, the plaintiff could not
possibly recover against the party whose joinder is questioned.” Padilla v. AT&T Corp., 697
F. Supp. 2d 1156, 1158 (C.D. Cal. 2009). The failure to state a claim against a non-diverse
defendant must be “obvious according to the well-settled rules of the state.” United Computer
Sys. v. AT&T Corp., 298 F.3d 756, 761 (9th Cir. 2002).
(2) The notice of removal simply states that “[d]efendants have a reasonable good faith
belief that Plaintiff seeks damages in excess of $75,000.” (Notice of Removal, Dkt. No. 1, at
6–7.) A defendant seeking to remove a case to a federal court need only file a notice of
removal “containing a short and plain statement of the grounds for removal.” 28 U.S.C. §
1446(a). Ordinarily, “the defendant’s amount-in-controversy allegation should be accepted
when not contested by the plaintiff or questioned by the court.” Dart Cherokee Basin Operating
Co., LLC v. Owens, 135 S. Ct. 547, 553 (2014). But if the plaintiff or the Court does contest
that allegation, then “removal . . . is proper on the basis of an amount in controversy
asserted” by the defendant “if the district court finds, by the preponderance of the evidence, that the
amount in controversy exceeds” the relevant jurisdictional threshold. See 28 U.S.C. §
1446(c)(2)(B) (emphasis added). “In such a case,” the Supreme Court has said, “both sides
submit proof and the [district] court decides, by a preponderance of the evidence, whether the
amount-in-controversy requirement has been satisfied.” Dart Cherokee, 135 S. Ct. at 554
(emphasis added).
Defendants representations here don’t provide the Court enough information to make a
determination that diversity-of-citizenship and the amount-in-controversy requirements have
both been appropriately satisfied. “Nothing is to be more jealously guarded by a court than
its jurisdiction.” See United States v. Ceja-Prado, 333 F.3d 1046, 1051 (9th Cir. 2003) (internal
quotation marks omitted). As such, the Court ORDERS the defendants to show cause in
writing—within 14 days of this order—why this action should not be dismissed for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction.
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Page 2 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.

SACV 17-00825 AG (JDEx)

Date

May 18, 2017

Title

CLAUDIA ESTRADA v. MERIDIAN SENIOR LIVING, LLC ET AL.
:
Initials of
Preparer

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Page 3 of 3

lmb

0