McCrow et al v. Supercuts, et al

Filing 18

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO REMAND signed by Chief Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on August 15, 2017. (Munoz, I)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 9 MARY McCROW, also known as MARY DUNCAN, an individual, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO REMAND Plaintiff, 10 11 1:17-cv-00770-LJO-SKO v. (ECF No. 11) SUPERCUTS, also known as SUPERCUTS 12 CORPORATE SHOPS, INC., and also known as REGIS CORPORATION, and Does 1-100, 13 14 15 Defendants. Plaintiff filed a motion to remand this case to state court on July 5, 2017. (ECF No. 11.) 16 Defendant Supercuts opposed the motion on August 1, 2017. (ECF No. 12). Plaintiff filed a reply on 17 August 3, 2017. (ECF No. 13.) Plaintiff represents in her reply brief she will seek leave to amend the 18 complaint to add Laura Saavedra, an individual who resides in Kings County, California, as a defendant 19 in this lawsuit. (ECF No. 13 at 3; Shapazian Decl. ¶¶ 5-6.) If a citizen of California citizen were added 20 as a proper defendant in this case, diversity would be destroyed and the Court would be required to 21 remand the case to state court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Court has reviewed and 22 considered Plaintiff’s other grounds for remand and concludes they are not viable, leaving only lack of 23 subject matter jurisdiction as a possible basis for remand. In the interest of judicial efficiency and in 24 light of Plaintiff’s representation regarding its intent to amend, Defendant is ordered to show cause in 25 writing on or before August 29, 2017 why Plaintiff’s reply brief should not be construed as a motion 26 1 1 for leave to amend to add Ms. Saavedra as a defendant, that motion granted,1 and this case remanded to 2 state court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 3 In the absence of an indication that such a defendant would be fraudulently joined, the Court 4 would be inclined to grant Plaintiff an opportunity to amend her complaint for the limited purpose of 5 adding such a defendant. Therefore, depending on the outcome of this order to show cause, the Court 6 may afford Plaintiff an opportunity to amend her complaint in federal court. Thereafter, the Court 7 would reevaluate its jurisdiction sua sponte. 8 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. 10 Dated: /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill _____ August 15, 2017 UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 1 Plaintiff suggests an alternative procedural path, whereby the court would remand to state court prior to the amendment of the complaint. That procedure is not proper where, as here, the basis for diversity jurisdiction is still apparent on the face of the pleadings. Miller v. Grgurich, 763 F.2d 372 (9th Cir. 1985); see also Williams v. Costco Wholesale Corp., 471 F.3d 975, 977 (9th Cir. 2006) (remand was improper where basis for federal court’s jurisdiction existed on the face of the complaint). 2

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?