Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Ande v. Target Corporation

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit

November 5, 2013

Bethlehem Ande
v.
Target Corporation, et al.

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

PHILIP S. GUTIERREZ, District Judge.

Proceedings: (In Chambers) Order to Show Cause re: Remand to State Court

This action was removed to this Court on October 23, 2013 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 based on federal question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, but it does not appear that any of the claims "arise under" federal law.
[ ] Removal is based on federal question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and the artful pleading doctrine, but the claims do not appear to be completely preempted by federal law. See Hall v. N. Am. Van Lines, Inc., 476 F.3d 683, 687 (9th Cir. 2007).
[ ] Removal is based on diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a), but all plaintiffs are not diverse from all defendants. See Caterpillar Inc. v. Lewis, 519 U.S. 61, 67-68 (1996).
[ ] Removal is based on diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a), but defendant has not alleged that diversity jurisdiction existed both at the time the action began and at the time of removal, or that a voluntary act by the plaintiff made the case removable after it was filed. See Strotek Corp. v. Air Transp. Ass'n of Am., 300 F.3d 1129, 1131-32 (9th Cir. 2002); Self v. Gen. Motors Corp., 588 F.2d 655, 657-58 (9th Cir. 1978).
[ ] Removal is based on diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a), but the complaint and notice of removal fail to allege the citizenship of some or all of the:
[X] plaintiff(s). An allegation on "information and belief" is not sufficient. See Kanter v. Warner-Lambert Co. , 265 F.3d 853, 857 (9th Cir. 2001) ("Absent unusual circumstances, a party seeking to invoke diversity jurisdiction should be able to allege affirmatively the actual citizenship of the relevant parties.").
[ ] defendant(s).
[ ] Removal is based on diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a), but the complaint and notice of removal set forth the residence, rather than the citizenship, of some or all of the parties. Diversity is based on citizenship.
[ ] Removal is based on diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). A partnership, limited liability company, or other unincorporated association is named 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 Carden v. Arkoma Assocs. , 494 U.S. 185, 195-96 (1990); United Steelworkers v. R.H. Bouligny, Inc. , 382 U.S. 145 (1965); Johnson v. Columbia Props. Anchorage, LP , 437 F.3d 894, 899 (9th Cir. 2006); Rockwell Int'l Credit Corp. v. U.S. Aircraft Ins. Grp. , 823 F.2d 302, 304 (9th Cir. 1987). The complaint and notice of removal do not set forth the citizenship of each of the entity's partners or members.
[ ] Removal is based on diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). A corporation is named as a party. The notice of removal is deficient because:
[ ] the complaint and the notice of removal do not set forth the corporation's state(s) of incorporation and its principal place of ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.