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)

Download PDF
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?