The opinion of the court was delivered by: Honorable Fernando M. Olguin, United States District Judge
Present: The Honorable Fernando M. Olguin, United States District Judge
Vanessa Figueroa None None Deputy Clerk Court Reporter / Recorder Tape No. Attorney Present for Plaintiff(s): Attorney Present for Defendant(s): None Present None Present Proceedings: (In Chambers) Order to Show Cause Re: Remand
On March 27, 2013, 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:
[ ] 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.
[ ] 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 Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Servs., Inc., 545 U.S. 546, 553, 125 S.Ct. 2611, 2617 (2005) ("In a case with multiple plaintiffs and multiple defendants, the presence in the action of a single plaintiff from the same State as a single defendant deprives the district court of original diversity jurisdiction[.]"); Strawbridge v. Curtiss, 7 U.S. (3 Cranch) 267 (1806) (all parties in a suit must be entitled to sue or be sued in federal court).
[ ] 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.
[ ] Jurisdiction is asserted on the basis of diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1332, but the pleadings fail to allege the citizenship of some or all of the: [ ] plaintiff(s). [ ] defendant(s).
[ ] 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. See Grupo Dataflux v. Atlas Global Grp., L.P., 541 U.S. 567, 569, 124 S.Ct. 1920, 1923 (2004) ("[A] partnership . . . is a citizen of each State or foreign country of which any of its partners is a citizen."); Carden v. Arkoma Assocs., 494 U.S. 185, 195, 110 S.Ct. 1015, 1021 (1990) (diversity jurisdiction depends on the citizenship of all members of an artificial entity); Johnson v. Columbia Props. Anchorage, LP, 437 F.3d 894, 899 (9th Cir. 2006) ("[A]n unincorporated association such as a partnership has the citizenships of all of its members.").
[ ] 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 complaint is the corporate party's principal place of business. For diversity purposes, the principal place of business is "the place where a corporation's officers direct, control, and coordinate the corporation's activities." Hertz Corp. v. Friend, 559 U.S. 77, 130 S.Ct. 1181, 1192 (2010); see also Harris v. Rand, 682 F.3d 846, 851 (9th Cir. 2012) (if allegations of a corporation's principal place of business are ...