Foster Poultry Farms, LLC v. Pet Treat Holdings
Filing
26
ORDER GRANTING Plaintiff's 22 Motion to Remand and REMANDING the Action to Merced County Superior Court, signed by District Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 1/26/2025. Certified copy of remand order sent to Merced County Superior Court. CASE CLOSED. (Deputy Clerk CRM)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
FOSTER POULTRY FARMS, LLC,
12
Plaintiff,
13
14
v.
PET TREAT HOLDINGS, dba PHELPS
INDUSTRIES, LLC, et al.
15
Defendants.
16
17
PHELPS INDUSTRIES, LLC,
18
Counterclaimant,
19
20
21
v.
FOSTER POULTRY FARMS, LLC, et al.,
Counter-Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No.: 1:24-cv-01154 JLT EPG
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO
REMAND AND REMANDING THE ACTION TO
MERCED COUNTRY SUPERIOR COURT
(Doc. 22)
22
23
Foster Poultry Farms LLC initiated this action in Merced County Superior Court, Case No.
24
24CV-03660, seeking to hold Pet Treat Holdings LLC, doing business as Phelps Industries LLC, liable
25
for violations of breach of contract, intentional interference with contractual relations, conversion, and
26
unfair competition under California law. (See Doc. 1-1.) Defendant removed the matter to this Court,
27
asserting this Court has diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. (Doc. 1.)
28
Plaintiff requests the Court remand the matter to Merced County Superior Court, asserting that
1
1
“[b]ecause both Phelps and Foster Farms are citizens of Delaware, complete diversity is lacking and so
2
too is diversity jurisdiction.” (Doc. 22 at 7, citing Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Servs., Inc., 545
3
U.S. 546, 553 (2005).) In addition, Plaintiff notes there is no subject matter jurisdiction based upon the
4
claims raised in the complaint. (Id. at 2.) Defendant filed a notice of non-opposition, also reporting
5
information received with Plaintiff’s Corporate Disclosure Statement showed there was not complete
6
diversity, and as a result “Phelps does not oppose Foster Farm’s request that this matter be remanded to
7
state court.” (Doc. 25 at 2.)
8
9
Based upon the information provided by the parties, the Court lacks diversity jurisdiction under
28 U.S.C. § 1332. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS:
10
1.
Plaintiff’s motion to remand (Doc. 22) is GRANTED.
11
2.
The matter is REMANDED to Merced County Superior Court.
12
3.
The Clerk of Court shall mail a certified copy of this order to Merced County Superior
Court.
13
14
15
16
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
January 26, 2025
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
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?