McCrow et al v. Supercuts, et al
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO REMAND signed by Chief Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on August 15, 2017. (Munoz, I)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
MARY McCROW, also known as MARY
DUNCAN, an individual,
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE:
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO REMAND
(ECF No. 11)
SUPERCUTS, also known as SUPERCUTS
12 CORPORATE SHOPS, INC., and also known
as REGIS CORPORATION, and Does 1-100,
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
for leave to amend to add Ms. Saavedra as a defendant, that motion granted,1 and this case remanded to
state court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
In the absence of an indication that such a defendant would be fraudulently joined, the Court
would be inclined to grant Plaintiff an opportunity to amend her complaint for the limited purpose of
adding such a defendant. Therefore, depending on the outcome of this order to show cause, the Court
may afford Plaintiff an opportunity to amend her complaint in federal court. Thereafter, the Court
would reevaluate its jurisdiction sua sponte.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill _____
August 15, 2017
UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE
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).
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?