The opinion of the court was delivered by: The Honorable Florence-marie Cooper
Alicia Mamer Not Reported N/A Deputy Clerk Court Reporter / Recorder Tape No. Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs: Attorneys Present for Defendants:
Not present Not present Proceedings: ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE REMAND TO STATE COURT
On August 12, 2009, this action was removed to this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441. However, the jurisdictional allegations appear to be defective for the reason(s) opposite the box(es) checked:
[ X ] Removal is on the basis of federal question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 but it appears that the claims may not "arise under" federal law.
[ ] Removal is on the basis of federal question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 on grounds of the artful pleading doctrine but the claims do not appear to be completely preempted. See, e.g., Beffa v. Bank of the West, 152 F.3d 1174, 1177 (9th Cir. 1998) ("The preemptive scope of EFAA described in § 4007 and the relevant portions of Regulation CC, 12 C.F.R. § 229.20, is quite narrow. Only state laws that establish different timing or disclosure requirements than EFAA or otherwise directly conflict with EFAA face preemption. Congress expressed no desire to preempt state laws or causes of action that supplement, rather than contradict, EFAA").
[ ] Removal is on the basis of diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a), but all plaintiffs are not diverse from all defendants. See Strawbridge v. Curtiss, 7 U.S. (3 Cranch) 267 (1806).
[ ] Removal is on the basis of diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332, but the pleadings set forth the residence, rather than the citizenship, of some of the parties. Diversity is based on citizenship.
[ ] Removal is on the basis of diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332, but the pleadings fail to allege the citizenship of some of the parties.
[ ] Removal is on the basis of diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332. A partnership, limited liability company, or other unincorporated association is joined as a party. The Court must consider the citizenship of each of the partners, including limited partners, or members. The citizenship of each of the entity's partners or members must therefore be alleged. Carden v. Arkoma Assocs., 494 U.S. 185 (1990); United Steelworkers v. Bouligny, Inc., 382 U.S. 145 (1965); Johnson v. Columbia Props. Anchorage, LP, No. 04-35671, 2006 U.S. App. LEXIS 3264 (9th Cir. February 10, 2006); Rockwell Int'l Credit Corp. v. U.S. Aircraft Ins. Group, 823 F.2d 302 (9th Cir. 1987).
[ ] Removal is on the basis of diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Some of the parties are corporations. The notice of removal is deficient because: [ ] the notice of removal does not state both the respective state(s) of incorporation and principal place of business. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c).
 the jurisdiction averment by the defendants is patently insufficient under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c).
Defendant(s) fail(s) to offer adequate facts to support the assertion that the principal place of business stated in the notice is the corporate party's principal place of business. The Ninth Circuit determines a corporation's principal place of business by examining the entity's "total activities," which takes into account all aspects of the corporation's business, including where its operations are located, where it supervises that business, and where it employs persons and conducts its business. Indus. Tectonics, Inc. v. Aero Alloy, 912 F.2d 1090, 1094 (9th Cir. 1990) ("[T]he principal place of business should be the place where the corporation conducts the most activity that is visible and impacts the public, so that it is least likely to suffer from prejudice against outsiders."). Accordingly, in determining a corporate party's principal place of business, this Court looks to the same factors. This entails (1) determining the location of the majority of ...