Larisa Sabadash v. SARL Brevent ( 2024 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 LARISA SABADASH, Case No. 2:23-cv-06265-FLA (KSx) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY 13 v. ACTION SHOULD NOT BE REMANDED FOR LACK OF 14 SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION SARL BREVENT, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 On March 24, 2023, Plaintiff Larisa Sabadash (“Plaintiff”) filed the Complaint 19 in Los Angeles County Superior Court, asserting four causes of action against 20 Defendants SARL Brevent, Ilya Meliya, and Jean François Blet (“Blet”) (collectively, 21 “Defendants”) for: (1) declaratory relief; (2) interference with contract; (3) fraudulent 22 concealment; and (4) unjust enrichment. Dkt. 17-1 at 9–19 (“Compl.”).1 23 On August 7 and 9, 2023, Defendants removed the action to this court, alleging 24 the existence of diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) (“Section 25 1332(a)”). Dkts. 5, 17. 26 27 1 The court cites documents by the page numbers added by the court’s CM/ECF 28 system, rather than any page numbers listed natively. 1 On September 7, 2023, Plaintiff filed the operative First Amended Complaint 2 (“FAC”), asserting the same four causes of action as in the Complaint. Dkt. 25 3 (“FAC”). Plaintiff alleges Defendants acted jointly as part of a “scheme” to buy 4 Plaintiff’s real property “without her knowledge and consent, for far less than market 5 value,” despite full knowledge that Plaintiff was the owner of the property pursuant to 6 a contract with her ex-husband, non-party Alexander Sabadash. FAC ¶¶ 9–28. 7 Federal courts are courts of “limited jurisdiction,” possessing only “power 8 authorized by the Constitution and statute[.]” Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of 9 Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994); U.S. Const. art. III, § 2, cl. 1. Courts are presumed to 10 lack jurisdiction unless the contrary appears affirmatively from the record. See 11 DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Cuno, 547 U.S. 332, 342 n. 3 (2006). Additionally, federal 12 courts have an obligation to examine jurisdiction sua sponte before proceeding to the 13 merits of a case. See Ruhrgas AG v. Marathon Oil Co., 526 U.S. 574, 583 (1999). 14 Pursuant to Section 1332(a), federal courts have diversity jurisdiction where 15 each plaintiff’s citizenship is diverse from each defendant’s citizenship and the 16 amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs. The Supreme 17 Court has “consistently interpreted § 1332 as requiring complete diversity: In a case 18 with multiple plaintiffs and multiple defendants, the presence in the action of a single 19 plaintiff from the same State as a single defendant deprives the district court of 20 original diversity jurisdiction over the entire action.” Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah 21 Servs., Inc., 545 U.S. 546, 553 (2005). 22 After reviewing the Notices of Removal (Dkts. 5, 17), the pleadings, and all 23 relevant documents, the court is unable to conclude presently that subject matter 24 jurisdiction exists under Section 1332(a). In particular, and without limitation, the 25 court finds Alexander Sabadash may be a required party under Fed. R. Civ. P. 19, as a 26 party to the agreement that forms the basis for Plaintiff’s claims, especially the first 27 28 1 | cause of action of declaratory relief.” Because Alexander Sabadash appears to be a 2 || California resident (see FAC §§ 10-11, 34), his addition to the action would destroy 3 | diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) as Plaintiff is also a California 4 | resident (FAC § 1).° See Exxon, 545 U.S. at 2622 (recognizing “the presence of 5 || nondiverse parties on both sides of a lawsuit eliminates the justification for providing 6 | a federal forum”). 7 Accordingly, the court ORDERS the parties to show cause in writing, within 8 | twenty-one (21) days from the date of this Order, why Alexander Sabadash is not a 9 | necessary party to this action and why this action should not be remanded for lack of 10 | subject matter jurisdiction. The parties are encouraged to submit evidence and/or 11 | judicially noticeable facts in response to the court’s Order. Responses shall be limited 12 | to ten (10) pages in length. Failure to respond timely and adequately to this Order 13 | shall result in remand of the action without further notice. 14 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. 16 17 | Dated: March 29, 2024 18 FERNANDO L. AENLLE-ROCHA United States District Judge 19 20 21 22 23 24 ——_—_—_— 26 | 7 The court notes Blet argues Alexander Sabadash is a required party. Dkt. 36 at 20; 57 Dkt. 67 at 12. 3 Blet also submitted documents indicating Alexander Sabadash lives in California. 28 | Dkt. 36-2 at 12.