Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-02390/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-02390-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity Action

---

1

19-CV-2390 JLS (BLM)

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARIA RUDOLFO,

Plaintiff,

v.

COSTCO WHOLESALE 

CORPORATION d.b.a. COSTCO 

WHOLESALE CORP. d.b.a. COSTCO; 

MATTHEW HARDY; and DOES 1 TO 

100, inclusive,

Defendants.

Case No.: 19-CV-2390 JLS (BLM)

ORDER SUA SPONTE REMANDING 

ACTION

This case began in State Court on April 8, 2019, when Plaintiff Maria Rudolfo, a 

citizen of the State of California, filed her original complaint against two defendants: 

Costco, a citizen of the State of Washington, and Matthew Hardy, a citizen of the State of 

California. Notice of Removal, ECF No. 1 at 2. On December 6, 2019, the Superior Court 

of California dismissed Mr. Hardy without prejudice. Id. On December 12, 2019, 

Defendant Costco Wholesale Corporation removed this action from the San Diego Superior 

Court on the basis of diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Id. After reviewing 

Defendant’s Notice of Removal, the Court concluded that jurisdiction may be lacking and, 

therefore, ordered Defendant to show cause why this action should not be remanded. 

Defendant has failed to respond. 

Case 3:19-cv-02390-JLS-BLM Document 10 Filed 01/28/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2

19-CV-2390 JLS (BLM)

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

“If at any time before final judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject 

matter jurisdiction, the case shall be remanded.” 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c); see also GFD, LLC 

v. Carter, No. CV 12-08985 MMM FFMX, 2012 WL 5830079, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 15, 

2012) (“The court may—indeed must—remand an action sua sponte if it determines that it 

lacks subject matter jurisdiction.”) (citing Kelton Arms Condominium Owners Ass’n v. 

Homestead Ins. Co., 346 F.3d 1190, 1192 (9th Cir. 2003)). There are two bases for subject 

matter jurisdiction: federal question jurisdiction and diversity jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1441. Relevant to this case, under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, courts have diversity jurisdiction 

when the “matter in controversy exceeds . . . $75,000 . . . and is between . . . [¶] citizens of 

different States.” 

Defendant contends that the dismissal of Mr. Hardy created complete diversity 

between Costco and Ms. Rudolfo and, on that basis, removal is proper. Defendant is 

correct that complete diversity existed after Mr. Hardy’s dismissal; however, removal in 

this case is not proper under the voluntary-involuntary rule. See Self v. Gen. Motors Corp., 

588 F.2d 655, 656 (9th Cir. 1978). Under the voluntary-involuntary rule, “if a suit could 

not be filed in federal court at the time of its filing, then it must remain in state court unless 

a voluntary act of the plaintiff brings about a change that renders the case removable.” 

Graybill-Bundgard v. Standard Ins. Co., 793 F. Supp. 2d 1117, 1119 (N.D. Cal. 2011)

(quoting California v. Keating, 986 F.2d 346, 348 (9th Cir. 1993)) (internal quotations and 

emphasis omitted). “More specifically, the ‘conversion [of a nonremovable case] can only 

be accomplished by the voluntary amendment of [the] pleadings by the plaintiff or, where 

the case is not removable because of joinder of defendants, by the voluntary dismissal or 

nonsuit’” by the plaintiff of the nondiverse defendant. Busch v. Jakov Dulcich & Sons 

LLC, No. 15-CV-00384-LHK, 2015 WL 3792898, at *4 (N.D. Cal. June 17, 2015) (quoting 

Self, 588 F.2d at 659). 

Here, the dismissal of Defendant Hardy was not a voluntary act by Plaintiff and, 

therefore, the case is not removable. See Graybill-Bundgard, 793 F. Supp. 2d at 1119

(holding dismissal of the defendant that created complete diversity did not render the case 

Case 3:19-cv-02390-JLS-BLM Document 10 Filed 01/28/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3

19-CV-2390 JLS (BLM)

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

removable). Defendant failed to respond to the Court’s concerns with jurisdiction and has 

therefore failed to meet its burden of establishing that removal is proper. See Gaus v. Miles, 

Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992) (“The ‘strong presumption’ against removal 

jurisdiction means that the defendant always has the burden of establishing that removal is 

proper.”). For these reasons, the Court REMANDS this action to the Superior Court of 

the State of California, County of San Diego. The Clerk of Court SHALL CLOSE the 

file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 28, 2020

Case 3:19-cv-02390-JLS-BLM Document 10 Filed 01/28/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3