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)

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