Artino v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ANNE ARTINO, Case No. 1:22-cv-01588-JLT-HBK 12 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 13 v. FOURTEEN-DAY RESPONSE PERIOD 14 HOME DEPOT USA, INC., KING OF CENTRAL VALLEY II, L.P., THE 15 VIGORO CORPORATION, and DOES 1- 50, 16 Defendants. 17 18 On December 12, 2022, Defendant Home Depot USA, Inc. removed this action from 19 Stanislaus County Superior Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332. (Doc. No. 1). The Court 20 scheduled this matter for an initial scheduling conference for March 23, 2023. (Doc. No. 3). At 21 the start of the scheduling conference, the Court sua sponte inquired as to the status of co- 22 defendant King of Central Valley II, L.P. who is identified in the state complaint as a “California 23 Limited Partnership,” (Doc. No. 1 at 5; Doc. No. 7). Plaintiff advised that King of Central Valley 24 II, L.P. was properly served in the underlying state action and remained a party. Notably, 25 Plaintiff has not filed a motion to remand in response to the Notice of Removal. (See docket). 26 Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, having subject matter jurisdiction only 27 over matters authorized by Congress and the Constitution. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 28 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). The Court can sua sponte raise jurisdiction. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). 1 A suit filed in state court may be removed to federal court if the federal court would have had 2 original jurisdiction over the suit. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). A removed action must be remanded to 3 state court if the federal court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. Id. § 1447(c). “The burden of 4 establishing federal jurisdiction is on the party seeking removal, and the removal statute is strictly 5 construed against removal jurisdiction.” Prize Frize, Inc. v. Matrix (U.S.) Inc., 167 F.3d 1261, 6 1265 (9th Cir. 1999). “Federal jurisdiction must be rejected if there is any doubt as to the right of 7 removal in the first instance.” Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992). 8 FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS 9 Plaintiff filed this case in Stanislaus County Superior Court against three named corporate 10 entities and Does 1-50. (Doc. No. 1 at 5). Defendant filed a Notice of Removal (“Notice”) based 11 on diversity of citizenship, which requires a minimum amount in controversy of $75,000 and 12 complete diversity between plaintiff and all defendants. (Doc. No. 1 at 1-3); 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a); 13 See Owen Equip. & Erection Co. v. Kroger, 437 U.S. 365, 373 (1978) (“That is, diversity 14 jurisdiction does not exist unless each defendant is a citizen of a different State from each 15 plaintiff.”) (Emphasis in original). 16 Defendant states that Plaintiff is a citizen of the State of California and that Home Depot 17 is a corporation headquartered in the State of Georgia, therefore “[d]iversity jurisdiction applies.” 18 (Doc. No. 1 at 2). Defendant Home Depot does not address the citizenship of its co-defendants. 19 The caption of the Notice identifies the co-defendants as “KING OF CENTRAL VALLEY II, 20 L.P., a California Limited Partnership” and “VIGORO CORPORATION, a Delaware 21 Corporation.” (Id. at 1). There is no dispute that the amount in controversy is above required 22 $75,000 necessary to establish diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). (Doc. No. 1 at 3, 23 11). 24 King of Central Valley II, L.P. is identified as a Limited Partnership in the state 25 complaint. (Doc. No. 1 at 5). “[B]ecause a partnership is a citizen of all of the states of which its 26 partners are citizens” the decision whether to remand to state court for lack of diversity 27 jurisdiction turns on the citizenship of its constituent corporations. See Johnson v. Columbia 28 Properties Anchorage, LP, 437 F.3d 894, 899 (9th Cir. 2006). Federal Rule of Evidence 201 1 | permits a court to take judicial notice of facts that are “not subject to reasonable dispute” because 2 | they are either “generally known within the trial court's territorial jurisdiction,” or they “can be 3 | accurately and readily determined from sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be 4 | questioned.” Fed. R. Evid. 201(b). The Court may take judicial notice on its own or at the 5 | request of any party. Id. 201(c). 6 The incorporation documents on the Secretary of State’s website indicates King of Central 7 | Valley I, LP has a single partner, Scarborough Management Corporation, which is headquartered 8 | in San Ramon, CA. Because this information “can be accurately and readily determined” from a 9 | source whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned, the Court takes judicial notice of the fact 10 | that the only partner of King of Central Valley I, LP is a citizen of the State of California, 11 || thereby making King of Central Valley II, LP a California citizen. 12 “[C]ourts have an independent obligation to determine whether subject matter jurisdiction 13 | exists, even in the absence of a challenge from any party.” Ruhrgas AG v. Marathon Oil Co., 526 14 | US. 574, 583, 119 S.Ct. 1563, 143 L.Ed.2d 760 (1999); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3) (requiring 15 | the court to dismiss the action if subject matter jurisdiction is lacking). Because the corporate 16 | documents appear to confirm the absence of complete diversity among Plaintiff and all 17 | Defendants, the Court orders Defendant Home Depot to show cause why the Court should not 18 | remand the matter to Stanislaus County Superior Court. 19 Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED: 20 Within fourteen (14) days from receipt of this Order Defendant Home Depot shall show 21 || cause why the Court should not remand the case to state court for lack of subject matter 22 | jurisdiction. 23 ** | Dated: _ March 24, 2023 Mihaw. Wh. foareh fackte 25 HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 27 28 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28