Mosher v. The Rooto Corporation

Filing 11

ORDER Regarding Plaintiff's 9 Amended Motion to Remand Requiring a Response From Defendant and Adjourning Upcoming Hearing (Responses due by 7/25/2013). Signed by District Judge Mark A. Goldsmith. (Goltz, D)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

WILLIAM MOSHER,
Plaintiff,

Civil Action No.
13-CV-12431

vs.
HON. MARK A. GOLDSMITH
THE ROOTO CORPORATION,
Defendant.
_____________________________/
ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO REMAND REQUIRING A
RESPONSE FROM DEFENDANT AND ADJOURNING UPCOMING HEARING
This matter was removed from state court on June 4, 2013 based on the purported
existence of diversity jurisdiction.

On June 5, 2013, the Court issued an order requiring

Defendant to file an amended notice of removal because Defendant, in its notice of removal, had
not properly alleged its citizenship, thus preventing the Court from discerning whether the Court
has diversity jurisdiction over the case.

See Dkt. 4.

Specifically, the Court noted that

Defendant’s citizenship was not properly alleged because Defendant stated only that it is “a
Nevada Corporation,” Dkt. 2, without specifying its principal place of business. See 28 U.S.C. §
1332(c)(1).
On June 6, 2013, Defendant filed a second amended notice of removal curing the
deficiency by clarifying that it is a “Nevada Corporation with its principal place of business
located 200 Hoover Avenue, Unit 1411, Las Vegas, Nevada, 89101.” See Dkt. 5.
On June 27, 2013, Plaintiff filed a motion to remand, see Dkt. 9, arguing that diversity is
lacking because Defendant’s principal place of business is not, in fact, Nevada; according to
Plaintiff, Defendant’s principal place of business is Michigan. Because it is not disputed that

Plaintiff is a Michigan citizen, Plaintiff contends that diversity of citizenship is lacking and that
the case must be remanded.

Plaintiff’s remand motion is supported by an affidavit from

Plaintiff’s counsel.
Defendant has not filed a response to Plaintiff’s motion to remand, and the time to do so
has now expired.

Accordingly, the hearing on Plaintiff’s motion, currently scheduled for

October 3, 2013, is adjourned, and Defendant shall show cause in writing by July 25, 2013, why
the case should not be remanded. Should Defendant fail to respond to this order, the Court will
construe Defendant’s silence as a concession that diversity jurisdiction is lacking and that remand is
appropriate. If Defendant does respond to this order, the Court will review the response and issue an
appropriate order.

SO ORDERED.
Dated: July 22, 2013
Flint, Michigan

s/Mark A. Goldsmith
MARK A. GOLDSMITH
United States District Judge
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record
and any unrepresented parties via the Court's ECF System to their respective email or First Class
U.S. mail addresses disclosed on the Notice of Electronic Filing on July 22, 2013.
s/Deborah J. Goltz
DEBORAH J. GOLTZ
Case Manager