Alexander Mee v. VisionTrack, Inc. ( 2024 )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES -- GENERAL Case No. CV 24-2563-JFW(Ex) Date: April 11, 2024 Title: Alexander Mee -v- VisionTrack, Inc., et al. PRESENT: HONORABLE JOHN F. WALTER, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Shannon Reilly None Present Courtroom Deputy Court Reporter ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR PLAINTIFFS: ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR DEFENDANTS: None None PROCEEDINGS (IN CHAMBERS): ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THIS CASE SHOULD NOT BE REMANDED FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION On February 21, 2024, Plaintiff Alexander Mee (“Plaintiff”) filed a Complaint against Defendants VisonTrack, Inc. (“VT, Inc.”) and VisionTrack Limited (“VT Limited”) (collectively, “Defendants”). On March 28, 2024, VT, Inc. filed a Notice of Removal, alleging that this Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1). Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, having subject matter jurisdiction only over matters authorized by the Constitution and Congress. See Bender v. Williamsport Area School District, 475 U.S. 534, 541 (1986). “Because of the Congressional purpose to restrict the jurisdiction of the federal courts on removal, the statute is strictly construed, and federal jurisdiction must be rejected if there is any doubt as to the right of removal in the first instance.” Duncan v. Stuetzle, 76 F.3d 1480, 1485 (9th Cir. 1996) (citations and quotations omitted). There is a strong presumption that the Court is without jurisdiction unless the contrary affirmatively appears. See Fifty Associates v. Prudential Insurance Company of America, 446 F.2d 1187, 1190 (9th Cir. 1990). As the party invoking federal jurisdiction, VT, Inc. bears the burden of demonstrating that removal is proper. See, e.g., Gaus v. Miles, 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992); Emrich v. Touche Ross & Co., 846 F.2d 1190, 1195 (9th Cir. 1988). Diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) requires that (1) all plaintiffs be of different citizenship than all defendants, and (2) the amount in controversy exceed $75,000. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). A corporation is a citizen of any state where it is incorporated and of the state where it has its principal place of business. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c). See, e.g., Bank of America, N.A. v. Remington Place Homeowner’s Association, 836 Fed. Appx. 580, 581 (9th Cir. 2021) (“Bank of America alleges that Remington Place Homeowners’ Association ‘is a Nevada non-profit corporation,’ but a corporation is a citizen of both its state of incorporation ‘and . . . the State where it has its principal place of business’”) (quoting Hertz Corp. v. Friend, 559 U.S. 77, 80 (2010)). In the Notice of Removal, VT, Inc. alleges that Plaintiff is a citizen of California and that VT, Inc. is a citizen of Delaware because it is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Delaware. Notice of Removal, ¶¶ 7-11. However, VT, Inc. has failed to allege the citizenship of VT Limited. Therefore, VT, Inc. has failed to establish that complete diversity exists. Accordingly, VT, Inc. is hereby ordered to show cause, in writing, no later than April 16, 2024 why this Court should not remand this action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. No oral argument on this matter will be heard unless otherwise ordered by the Court. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 78; Local Rule 7-15. The Order will stand submitted upon the filing of the response to the Order to Show Cause. If the parties file a stipulation and proposed order remanding this action to state court, the Court will consider that a satisfactory response to the Order to Show Cause. Failure to respond to the Order to Show Cause will result in the remand of this action. IT IS SO ORDERED.