Preston et al v. Chula Vista Center, LP et al

Filing 5

ORDER Remanding Action for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction. Signed by Judge Cathy Ann Bencivengo on 1/11/2018.(rmc)(Certified copy mailed to Superior Court)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 E.P, a minor child, by and through his Guardian ad litem, EMMENLE PRESTON, Sr.; and MAJEL WILLIAMS, an individual, 12 Plaintiffs, 10 13 ORDER REMANDING ACTION FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION v. 14 Case No.: 3:18-cv-0006-CAB-(JMA) CHULA VISTA CENTER, L.P.; ROUSE PROPERTIES, LLC; KONE, INC.; and DOES1-50, inclusive, 15 16 Defendants. 17 18 On July 10, 2017, Plaintiffs commenced this personal injury suit against Defendants 19 in the San Diego Superior Court. [Doc. No. 1-2 at 6-25.] On January 2, 2018, Defendants 20 removed this action to federal court on the basis of diversity jurisdiction. [Doc. No. 1.] 21 On January 3, 2018, this Court ordered Defendants to show cause on or before 22 January 10, 2018, why this matter should not be remanded for lack of subject matter 23 jurisdiction. [Doc. No. 2.] Specifically, the Court was concerned whether there is complete 24 diversity among the parties. Rather than respond to the order to show cause, Defendants 25 filed a Motion to Request Additional Time to Submit Briefing Responsive to the OSC re 26 Jurisdiction [Doc. No. 4] on January 10, 2018. But, the Court declines to grant the 27 extension because Defendants should have ascertained the citizenship of all of the 28 1 3:18-cv-0006-CAB-(JMA) 1 members/partners prior to filing the notice of removal proffering the diversity of the 2 parties. 3 By failing to respond to the Order to Show Cause Defendants have not assuaged the 4 Court’s concerns regarding jurisdiction. 5 jurisdiction, Defendants must demonstrate there is complete diversity of citizenship 6 between the parties and that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. Caterpillar Inc. 7 v. Lewis, 519 U.S. 61, 68 (1996). To meet their burden to establish complete diversity, 8 Defendants must allege the actual citizenship of all of its members/partners. Provincial 9 Gov’t of Marinduque v. Placer Dome, Inc., 582 F.3d 1083, 1087 (9th Cir. 2009). Here, the 10 vague assurances provided that all entities related to Defendants are Delaware entities with 11 their principal places of business in New York, NY are not sufficient. Furthermore, the 12 myriad of reasons1 provided by Defendants for needing more time to comply with the OSC 13 is evidence that Defendants have not determined the existence of complete diversity 14 between the parties. Thus, although being given the opportunity to do so, Defendants have 15 not met their burden of demonstrating there is complete diversity of citizenship. In order to invoke this Court’s diversity 16 Because Defendants fail to establish diversity jurisdiction as required by 28 U.S.C. 17 § 1332 and 1441 removal was improper and the Court sua sponte REMANDS this action 18 back to the San Diego Superior Court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C 19 § 1447(c) (“[i]f at any time before final judgment it appears that the district court lacks 20 subject matter jurisdiction, the case shall be remanded.”). See also Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 21 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992) (the removal statute is strictly construed, and any doubt about 22 the right of removal requires resolution in favor of remand); Polo v. Innoventions Int’l., 23 LLC, 833 F.3d 1193, 1197 (9th Cir. 2016) (if federal jurisdiction is absent from the 24 25 26 27 28 1 Defendants request an extension to respond to the OSC because (1) they need to contact other organizations not parties to this action; (2) one of the Defendants has undergone a corporate reorganization and relocation; (3) they are reluctant to disclose “confidential business information or proprietary data or identities of members/partners without some measure of protection;” and (4) “while Defendants understand the Court must be satisfied there is complete diversity, Defendants should not be required to disclose the entire hierarchy of their corporate formation and operations.” [Doc. No. 4 at 3.] 2 3:18-cv-0006-CAB-(JMA) 1 commencement of a case, [a case] is not “properly removed” – and therefore need not “stay 2 [] removed.”) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Additionally, the Court 3 DENIES Defendants’ motion for extension of time. [Doc. No. 4.] 4 5 It is SO ORDERED. Dated: January 11, 2018 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3 3:18-cv-0006-CAB-(JMA)

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?