Hill v. The Scooter Store et al

Filing 11

ORDER DIRECTING DEFENDANTS TO SHOW CAUSE WHY ACTION SHOULD NOT BE REMANDED; DIRECTING DEFENDANTS TO FILE COPIES OF DOCUMENTS REFERENCED IN NOTICE OF REMOVAL. Defendants shall show cause, in writing and no later than August 25, 2006, why the action s hould not be remanded for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Further, defendants assert in the Notice of Removal that they have attached thereto certain documents, specifically, the complaint, summons, proof of service, and answer; none of those do cuments, however, is attached. Defendants are ordered to file, no later than August 25, 2006, a supplement to the Notice of Removal, attaching thereto those documents. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on August 16, 2006. (mmclc1, COURT STAFF) Additional attachment(s) added on 8/23/2006 (tl, COURT STAFF).

Hill v. The Scooter Store et al

Doc. 11

Case 3:06-cv-04740-MMC

Document 11

Filed 08/16/2006

Page 1 of 2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

GLENN P. HILL, Plaintiff, v. THE SCOOTER STORE, et al., Defendants /

No. C-06-4740 MMC ORDER DIRECTING DEFENDANTS TO SHOW CAUSE WHY ACTION SHOULD NOT BE REMANDED; DIRECTING DEFENDANTS TO FILE COPIES OF DOCUMENTS REFERENCED IN NOTICE OF REMOVAL

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Before the Court is the Notice of Removal, filed August 4, 2006, by defendants The Scooter Store - San Francisco, L.L.C. ("Scooter Store SF") and Roland Martini ("Martini"), by which defendants seek to remove a complaint filed in state court by plaintiff Glenn P. Hill ("Hill"). In the Notice of Removal, defendants allege the instant complaint is removable on the basis of diversity jurisdiction. In support of this assertion, defendants allege the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, (see Notice of Removal at 3:13-14 (citing Austin Affidavit ¶ 6)), and the joinder of non-diverse defendant Martini is "fraudulent," (see id. at 2:22 3:9).1 Defendants' allegations with respect to the citizenship of Scooter Store SF, however, are insufficient to allege the existence of diversity jurisdiction. In particular, defendants On August 11, 2006, defendants filed a motion, scheduled for hearing September 22, 2006, by which defendants seek dismissal of the claims against Martini on the ground he has been improperly joined herein.
1

Dockets.Justia.com

Case 3:06-cv-04740-MMC

Document 11

Filed 08/16/2006

Page 2 of 2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

allege the sole member of Scooter Store SF, a limited liability corporation, is a Nevada corporation known as The Scooter Store - USA, Inc. ("Scooter Store USA"). See id. at 2:15-16; Johnson v. Columbia Properties Anchorage, LP, 437 F. 3d 894, 899 (9th Cir. 2006) (holding limited liability corporation is "citizen of every state in which its owners/ members are citizens"). Defendants fail to allege, however, the state in which Scooter Store USA maintains its principal place of business, see 28 U.S.C.A. § 1332(c)(1) (providing, for diversity of citizenship purposes, corporation is citizen of state where it is incorporated and state where it has principal place of business), and, consequently, have failed to allege that Hill and Scooter Store USA are citizens of different states. Accordingly, defendants are hereby ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE, in writing and no later than August 25, 2006, why the instant action should not be remanded for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Further, defendants assert in the Notice of Removal that they have attached thereto certain documents, specifically, Hill's complaint, the summons issued by the state court, Hill's proof of service on Scooter Store SF, and Scooter Store SF's answer. (See Notice of Removal at 1:17-27.) None of those documents, however, is attached to the Notice of Removal. Accordingly, defendants are hereby ORDERED to file, no later than August 25, 2006, a supplement to the Notice of Removal, attaching thereto the above-referenced documents. See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(b) (providing district court may require removing party to file copies of documents filed in state court). IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 16, 2006

MAXINE M. CHESNEY United States District Judge

2