Ramachandran v. Accenture, LLP

Filing 18

ORDER by Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd (1) denying 8 plaintiff's Motion to Remand; and (2) Re-Setting Initial Case Management Conference. Initial case management conference set for 12/11/2012, 1:30 PM. All related deadlines adjusted accordingly. (hrllc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/7/2012)

1
*E-FILED: November 7, 2012*

2
3
4
5
6

NOT FOR CITATION

8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

SAN JOSE DIVISION

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

7

ELEANOR RAMACHANDRAN,
Plaintiff,

12
13
14

No. C12-04834 HRL
ORDER (1) DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO REMAND; AND (2) RESETTING INITIAL CASE
MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

v.
ACCENTURE LLP,

[Re: Docket No. 8]
Defendant.

15

/
16
17

Plaintiff Eleanor Ramachandran sues for alleged employment discrimination, wrongful

18

termination, and failure to pay overtime wages. She filed her complaint in the Santa Clara

19

County Superior Court, asserting nine claims under state law. Defendant Accenture LLP

20

(Accenture) timely removed the matter here, invoking the court’s diversity jurisdiction under 28

21

U.S.C. § 1332. Plaintiff now moves for an order remanding this action to the state court,

22

arguing that Accenture’s removal notice is defective. Defendant opposes the motion. The

23

matter is deemed suitable for determination without oral argument, and the November 13, 2012

24

hearing is vacated. CIV. L.R. 7-1(b). Upon consideration of the moving and responding papers,

25

the court denies the motion.1
District courts have original jurisdiction of all civil actions between citizens of different

26
27

states and where the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. 28 U.S.C. § 1332. To support

28
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 73, all parties have
expressly consented that all proceedings in this matter may be heard and finally adjudicated
by the undersigned.
1

1

removal based on diversity, Accenture has the burden of establishing federal jurisdiction by a

2

preponderance of the evidence. Cohn v. Petsmart, Inc., 281 F.3d 837, 839 (9th Cir. 2002).

3

Ramachandran does not dispute her California citizenship; and, the parties agree that, for

4

diversity jurisdiction purposes, the required amount in controversy is satisfied. Plaintiff

5

nevertheless contends that Accenture’s removal notice does not properly identify defendant’s

6

citizenship.

7

Corporate entities are treated as citizens of each state of which its members are citizens.

8

Carden v. Arkoma Associates, 110 S. Ct. 1015, 1021, 494 U.S. 185, 108 L.Ed.2d 157 (1990).

9

In its removal notice, Accenture asserts that it is a limited liability partnership comprised of two
partners: (1) Accenture, Inc., a Delaware corporation; and (2) Accenture, LLC, a Delaware

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

limited liability company. The notice goes on to state that the principal places of business of

12

Accenture, Inc. and Accenture LLC are in Illinois. As such, defendant says that it is a citizen of

13

Delaware and Illinois.

14

Plaintiff argues that Accenture should have also identified the citizenship of each partner

15

of Accenture LLC. Indeed, “diversity jurisdiction in a suit by or against the entity depends on

16

the citizenship of all the members, the several persons composing such association, [and] each

17

of its members.” See Carden, 110 S. Ct. at 1021 (citations omitted)). In its opposition to

18

plaintiff’s motion to remand, Accenture says that the sole member of Accenture LLC is

19

Accenture Sub Inc., a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Illinois.

20

(Roberts Decl. ¶¶ 4-5). As such, defendant affirms that Accenture LLC is a citizen of Delaware

21

and Illinois.

22

Ramachandran maintains that defendant’s removal notice is defective nonetheless

23

because it does not contain this newly disclosed information about Accenture Sub Inc. On that

24

basis, she requests that the court exercise its discretion to remand this action. Although

25

defendant’s removal notice is defective, “[a] court may consider supplemental evidence later

26

proffered by the removing defendant, which was not originally included in the removal notice.”

27

Arriola v. WS Packaging Group, Inc., No. 2:10-cv-07941, 2011 WL 103959 at *2 (C.D. Cal.,

28

Jan. 12, 2011) (citing Cohn, 281 F.3d at 840 n.1)). Defendant having submitted evidence of
2

1

Accenture LLC’s citizenship, the court will treat defendant’s opposition papers as an

2

amendment to its removal notice. See Cohn, 281 F.3d at 840 n.1 (finding no error in the district

3

court’s decision to construe defendant’s opposition to a motion for remand as an amendment to

4

its defective removal notice because “‘it is proper to treat the removal petition as if it had been

5

amended to include the relevant information contained in the later-filed affidavits’”) (quoting

6

Willingham v. Morgan, 395 U.S. 402, 407 n.3, 89 S. Ct. 1813, 23 L.Ed.2d 396 (1969)).

7

Plaintiff’s motion for remand is denied.

8
9

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

The initial case management conference is re-set for December 11, 2012, 1:30 p.m. All
related deadlines are adjusted accordingly.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: November 7, 2012

12
HOWARD R. LLOYD
13

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3

1

5:12-cv-04834-HRL Notice has been electronically mailed to:

2

Christopher R. LeClerc

3

Christopher Robert Le Clerc

4

G. Daniel Newland

[e-mail], [e-mail]

5

Robert Brian Wong

[e-mail], [e-mail]

6

Stephen F. Danz

[e-mail]
[e-mail]

[e-mail], [e-mail]

7
8
9

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4