Dagdag v. Merrill Gardens, LLC,et.al

Filing 4

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE. If Defendants do not, by 3/28/2017, file an amended Notice of Removal that establishes this court's jurisdiction in a manner consistent with the preceding discussion, the court will remand this action to Santa Clara County Superior Court. Signed by Judge Edward J. Davila on 3/23/2017. (ejdlc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/23/2017)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6

SAN JOSE DIVISION

7
8

MARY GRACE DAGDAG,

Case No. 5:17-cv-01564-EJD

Plaintiff,
9

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

v.
10
11

MERRILL GARDENS, LLC, et al.,

United States District Court
Northern District of California

Defendants.
12
13

Defendants Merrill Gardens, LLC; MG PEO, LLC; and Merrill Gardens at Campbell, LLC

14

removed the instant action originally initiated by Plaintiff Mary Grace Dagdag in the Santa Clara

15

County Superior Court on the basis of diversity jurisdiction.

16

As is its obligation, the court has reviewed the Notice of Removal and other relevant

17

pleadings to determine whether Defendants have established a basis for subject matter jurisdiction.

18

See Henderson v. Shinseki, 562 U.S. 428, 434 (2011) (“[F]ederal courts have an independent

19

obligation to ensure that they do not exceed the scope of their jurisdiction, and therefore they must

20

raise and decide jurisdictional questions that the parties either overlook or elect not to press.”); see

21

also Snell v. Cleveland, Inc., 316 F.3d 822, 826 (9th Cir. 2002) (“[A] court may raise the question

22

of subject matter jurisdiction, sua sponte, at any time during the pendency of the action, even on

23

appeal.”). They have not.

24

“Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction.” Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co of

25

Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). “[S]ubject-matter jurisdiction refers to the courts statutory or

26

constitutional power to adjudicate the case.” Pistor v. Garcia, 791 F.3d 1104, 1110-11 (9th Cir.

27

2015) (internal quotations omitted). Consistent with a federal court’s limited jurisdiction,

28

1
Case No.: 5:17-cv-01564-EJD
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

1

“removal is permissible only where original jurisdiction exists at the time of removal.” Lexecon

2

Inc. v. Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach, 523 U.S. 26, 43 (1998). “Where doubt regarding

3

the right to removal exists, a case should be remanded to state court.” Matheson v. Progressive

4

Specialty Ins. Co., 319 F.3d 1089, 1090 (9th Cir. 2003); see 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) (“If at any time

5

before final judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the case

6

shall be remanded.”).

7

Defendants state in the Notice of Removal that this court has subject matter jurisdiction

8

under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. “For a case to qualify for federal jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a),

9

there must be complete diversity of citizenship between the parties opposed in interest.” Kuntz v.
Lamar Corp., 385 F.3d 1177, 1181 (9th Cir. 2004). Consequently, Defendants must “allege

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

affirmatively the actual citizenship of the relevant parties.” Kanter v. Warner-Lambert Co., 265

12

F.3d 853, 857 (9th Cir. 2001); accord DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Cuno, 547 U.S. 332, 342 n.3

13

(2006) (Because “federal courts lack jurisdiction unless the contrary appears affirmatively from

14

the record, the party asserting federal jurisdiction when it is challenged has the burden of

15

establishing it.”).

16

Here, Defendants claim that Plaintiff is a resident of California and that Defendants “are all

17

incorporated in the State of Washington with their headquarters and principal place of business in

18

the State of Washington.” These statements are deficient. As to Plaintiff, Defendants must

19

establish her state of domicile, not merely allege her state of residence. See Kanter, 265 F.3d at

20

857 (“A person residing in a given state is not necessarily domiciled there, and thus is not

21

necessarily a citizen of that state.”). As to Defendants themselves, they cannot rely solely on their

22

states of incorporation and principal places of business. Instead, they must establish the

23

citizenships of each of their members because “an LLC is a citizen of every state of which its

24

owners/members are citizens.” Johnson v. Columbia Props. Anchorage, LP, 437 F.3d 894, 899

25

(9th Cir. 2006).

26
27
28

Because Defendants have not satisfied their obligation to affirmatively demonstrate federal
subject matter jurisdiction, the court issues an order to show cause why this action should not be
2
Case No.: 5:17-cv-01564-EJD
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

1

remanded. If Defendants do not, by March 28, 2017, file an amended Notice of Removal that

2

establishes this court’s jurisdiction in a manner consistent with the preceding discussion, the court

3

will remand this action to Santa Clara County Superior Court. See 28 U.S.C. § 1653.

4

No hearing will be held on the order to show cause unless otherwise ordered by the court.

5
6
7

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 23, 2017
______________________________________
EDWARD J. DAVILA
United States District Judge

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

3
Case No.: 5:17-cv-01564-EJD
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE