Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-02352/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-02352-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 320
Nature of Suit: Assault, Libel, and Slander
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Libel,Assault,Slander

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

1

 Docket No. 8.

2

 Docket No. 1. 

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LARRY WASHINGTON,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

SHELL OIL PRODUCTS US., et. al.,

Defendants. /

No. C07-2352 MJJ

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO

REMAND 

INTRODUCTION

Before the Court is Plaintiff Larry Washington’s (“Plaintiff”) Motion to Remand.1

Defendant Equilon Enterprises LLC d/b/a Shell Oil Products US (“Equilon”) opposes the Motion to

Remand. For the following reasons the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand. 

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On March 8, 2007, Plaintiff Larry Washington, a resident of California, filed suit in

California state court (“Complaint”) against Defendant and Does 1 to 20. According to Equilon’s

Notice of Removal2

 (“Notice”), Equilon received the Complaint on April 5, 2007 at its refinery in

Martinez, California. (Notice ¶ 6.) Plaintiff’s Complaint claims that on or about November 8, 2005,

Plaintiff was an employee at Equilon's refinery and that he incurred an injury while working at the

refinery. Plaintiff’s Complaint states two causes of action against Defendants, the first based on

Case 3:07-cv-02352-MJJ Document 16 Filed 08/02/07 Page 1 of 6
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

3

Docket No. 14.

4

Section 1441(b) further provides that if the basis for federal jurisdiction is diversity of citizenship, removal is

available only if no defendant is a citizen of the forum state. 

2

strict liability and the second based on negligence. On April 30, 2007, Equilon filed a Notice of

Removal of Plaintiff’s action from state court to the District Court for the Northern District of

California pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441, claiming that the Court has subject matter jurisdiction over

the case under diversity jurisdiction as provided by 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Plaintiff filed a Motion for

Remand (“Motion”) on May 29, 2007. The case was reassigned to this Court on June 21, 2007. 

Equilon filed an Opposition3

 (“Opposition”) to Plaintiff’s Motion on July 16, 2007. Plaintiff has not

filed a reply to Equilon’s Opposition. 

LEGAL STANDARD

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a), a defendant in a civil action may remove a case from state

court to federal district court if the district court has subject matter jurisdiction over the case. The

district court has subject matter jurisdiction over a case if there is diversity of citizenship between

the parties or if the action is founded on a claim arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of

the United States. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b); 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question); 28 U.S.C. § 1332

(diversity jurisdiction); Ethridge v. Harbor House Restaurant, 861 F.2d 1389, 1393 (9th Cir. 1988).4

 As the party seeking to remove the action, the defendant bears the burden of establishing that

subject matter jurisdiction exists. Ethridge, 861 F.2d at 1393. Because the Court strictly construes

the removal statute against removal, if there is any doubt as to the existence of federal jurisdiction,

the Court should remand the matter to state court. See Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th

Cir. 1992). 

The procedure for removal is set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1446. This section provides that a

defendant seeking to remove a civil action to federal court must file a notice identifying the basis for

removal “within 30 days after the receipt by the defendant, through service or otherwise, of a copy

of the initial pleading setting forth the claim for relief upon which such action or proceeding is

based[.]” 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b). 

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c), a plaintiff may challenge the propriety of removal based on

Case 3:07-cv-02352-MJJ Document 16 Filed 08/02/07 Page 2 of 6
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

3

procedural defects and move to remand a case to state court within 30 days after the filing of the

notice of removal. See N. Cal. Dist. Council of Laborers v. Pittsburg-Des Moines Steel Co., 69 F.3d

1034, 1037 (9th Cir. 2003).

ANALYSIS

In its Notice, Equilon contends diversity jurisdiction is satisfied because: (1) Plaintiff seeks

damages in excess of $2.5 million, (2) Plaintiff is a resident of the State of California, (3) Equilon

was, has been, and still is a limited liability company organized and existing under the laws of

Delaware, with its principal place of business in the state of Texas, (4) each of Equilon’s individual

members is incorporated in, or is a limited liability company organized under the laws of, a state

other than California, and that each individual member has its principal place of business in a state

other than California, and (5) the fictitious Doe defendants in the Complaint must be discarded for

the purposes of determining diversity removal. 

In his Motion, Plaintiff contends that courts must look to the Complaint to determine whether

an action can be removed. Plaintiff avers that since the Complaint alleges that Equilon is a resident

of or doing business in the State of California, the burden shifts to Equilon to prove the existence of

diversity and the amount in controversy by a preponderance of evidence. Plaintiff further contends

that Equilon has failed to establish that California is not Equilon’s principal place of business. In its

Opposition, Equilon proffers the declaration of Hector A. Pineda, Secretary for Equilon

(“Declaration”). The Declaration states that: (1) Equilon is a limited liability company organized

under Delaware law, with its principal place of business in Houston Texas, (2) as of April 30, 2007,

Equilon’s members are TMR Company (“TMR”) and SOPC Holdings West LLC (“SOPC”), (3)

TMR is incorporated in Delaware and has its headquarters in Houston, Texas, (4) SOPC is a limited

liability company organized under Delaware law and headquartered in Delaware, (5) SOPC’s

members are Shell Oil Company and Shell Oil Products Company LLC, (6) Shell Oil Products LLC,

is a Delaware limited liability company, and (6) the sole member of Shell Oil Products Company

LLC is Shell Oil Company, which is a Delaware Corporation with its headquarters in Houston,

Texas.

//

Case 3:07-cv-02352-MJJ Document 16 Filed 08/02/07 Page 3 of 6
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

4

28 U.S.C. § 1441 in pertinent part provides:

(a) Except as otherwise expressly provided by Act of Congress, any

civil action brought in a State court of which the district courts of the

United States have original jurisdiction, may be removed by the

defendant or the defendants, to the district court of the United States

for the district and division embracing the place where such action is

pending. For purposes of removal under this chapter, the citizenship

of defendants sued under fictitious names shall be disregarded.

(b) Any civil action of which the district courts have original

jurisdiction founded on a claim or right arising under the

Constitution, treaties or laws of the United States shall be removable

without regard to the citizenship or residence of the parties. Any

other such action shall be removable only if none of the parties in

interest properly joined and served as defendants is a citizen of the

State in which such action is brought.

28 U.S.C. §§ 1441(a), (b). 

28 U.S.C. § 1332 in pertinent part provides: 

(a) The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil

actions where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of

$75,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and is between--

(1) citizens of different States . . .

(c) For the purposes of this section and section 1441 of this title--

(1) a corporation shall be deemed to be a citizen of any State

by which it has been incorporated and of the State where it has its

principal place of business.

28 U.S.C. §§ 1332(a)(1), (c)(1).

Here, Plaintiff has not filed any documents contesting that his Complaint satisfies the amount

in controversy requirement for diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C 1332(a). Therefore, the only

issue before the Court is whether there is diversity of citizenship. The “Doe” defendants are not

considered in this analysis because § 1441 provides that “for purposes of removal under this chapter,

the citizenship of defendants sued under fictitious names shall be discarded.” 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). 

Because Equilon is a limited liability company, Equilon’s citizenship for diversity purposes is

determined by the citizenship of its members. See Johnson v. Columbia Properties Anchorage, LP, 

437 F.3d 894, 899 (9th Cir. 2006). Equilon’s Opposition and Declaration meets its burden of

establishing that at time the Complaint was filed and removal was effected, Equilon and its members

were not incorporated in California, and that California was not a principal place of business for any

of them. Therefore, Equilon’s Opposition and Declaration provides a sufficient factual basis to

Case 3:07-cv-02352-MJJ Document 16 Filed 08/02/07 Page 4 of 6
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

5

establish that diversity of citizenship as defined and required in 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c) and 28 U.S.C.

1441(b) is satisfied. Equilon’s allegation that Plaintiff is a citizen of California has not been

contested by Plaintiff. Accordingly, because Plaintiff and Equilon are not citizens of the same state,

there is complete diversity under the language of § 1332. 

Plaintiff contends that the Court must look to Plaintiff’s Complaint in determining citizenship

of the parties, and that the Complaint alleges that Equilon is a resident of or doing business in the

State of California. Section 1332(c)(1) provides that, “a corporation shall be deemed to be a citizen

of any State by which it has been incorporated and of the State where it has its principal place of

business.” 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1). Plaintiff’s original state court Complaint alleges that Shell Oil

Products US and Does 1 to 20 “were residents or doing business in Contra Costa County.” (Notice,

Ex. B.) Plaintiff’s Complaint does not allege that Equilon, or its members, are incorporated in

California, nor that California is a principal place of business for Equilon or its members. Therefore,

even taking the facts alleged in the Complaint to be true, Plaintiff has not alleged facts sufficient to

establish that Equilon is a citizen of California or that California is its principal place of business

under the language of § 1332. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Complaint does not contradict Equilon’s

evidence that complete diversity exists. 

Plaintiff cites Abrego Abrego v. The Dow Chemical Co., 443 F.3d 676 (9th Cir. 2006) for the

contention that he should be provided an opportunity to conduct discovery to establish that

Defendant’s principal place of business is California. Plaintiff’s contention is unpersuasive. Abrego

is inapposite to the instant case, both because the Abrego court addressed an action removed under

the Class Action Fairness Act, and because the court recognizes only that “some courts have

suggested that it may be appropriate to allow discovery relevant to jurisdictional amount prior to

remanding.” Id. at 691 (emphasis added). Jurisdictional amount is not in dispute here. Therefore,

Plaintiff has not established a basis for conducting jurisdictional discovery on the issue of Equilon’s

citizenship. 

//

//

//

Case 3:07-cv-02352-MJJ Document 16 Filed 08/02/07 Page 5 of 6
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

6

//

CONCLUSION

Because Equilon has established that complete diversity exists under U.S.C. § 1332, the Court

DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion for Remand. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August ___, 2007 

MARTIN J. JENKINS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:07-cv-02352-MJJ Document 16 Filed 08/02/07 Page 6 of 6