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.

Ross v. Henkels and McCoy, Inc.

United States District Court, C.D. California

May 8, 2018

Mike Ross
v.
Henkels and McCoy, Inc., et al.

          Present: The Honorable Fernando M. Olguin, United States District Judge

          CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

         Proceedings: (In Chambers) Order Remanding Action

         On March 9, 2018, Mike Ross ("plaintiff") filed a Complaint in the Los Angeles County Superior Court against Henkels &McCoy, Inc. and Henkels & McCoy Group, Inc. ("defendants"). (See Dkt. 1-1, Notice of Removal ("NOR") at 1-3; Dkt. 1-3, Exhibit A, "Complaint"). Plaintiff asserted claims for whistleblower retaliation and termination in violation of public policy. (See Dkt. 1-3, Complaint at ¶¶ 18-31). On April 23, 2018, defendants removed that action on diversity jurisdiction grounds pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332. (See Dkt. 1-1, NOR at 2). However, the jurisdictional allegations are defective for the reason 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 offederal 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[.]").
[ ] 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 implausible or the court has doubts about whether diversity exists, it may request additional allegations of the principal place of business).
[ ] Removal is on the basis of diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332. One or more of the parties is named in a representative capacity, and the citizenship of the represented person is not alleged or appears to be not diverse. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(2).
[ ] Removal is on the basis of diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332, but defendants fail to allege the existence of diversity both at the time the action was commenced and at the time of removal. See Strotek Corp. v. Air Transp. Ass'n of Am., 300 F.3d 1129, 1131-32 (9th Cir. 2002) ("[Diversity] is determined (and ...

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.