Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00530/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00530-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 365
Nature of Suit: Personal Injury - Product Liability
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Product Liability

---

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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LESTER and ZOELA JAURAN, 

 CALIFORNIA STATE AUTOMOBILE

 ASSOCIATION, et al.,

Plaintiffs, CIV-S-06-0530 DFL PAN 

v. ORDER

K-MART CORPORATION, CHAR-BROIL,

 LLC, et al.,

Defendants.

_________________________________/

Plaintiffs Lester and Zoela Jauran (the “Jaurans”) and the

California State Automobile Association (“CSAA”) move to remand

this case to the Superior Court of the State of California,

County of Butte. They argue that defendants’ notice of removal

is deficient because it does not state plaintiffs’ citizenship

for the purpose of diversity jurisdiction. Plaintiffs’ motion to

remand is DENIED.

Once a notice of removal is filed, the court may look beyond

the complaint in order to determine diversity of citizenship. 

See Schroeder v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 702 F.2d 189, 191

(9th Cir. 1983). Here, defendants’ notice of removal, citing

Case 2:06-cv-00530-DFL -KJM Document 9 Filed 05/15/06 Page 1 of 3
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

 To the extent the notice of removal is deficient, 1

defendants have amended the notice to more specifically allege

that plaintiffs are California citizens. While a removing party

can amend its notice freely within the 30-day removal period,

Richardson v. United Steelworkers of Am., 864 F.2d 1162 (5th Cir.

1989), defendants did not amend until after the 30-day period had

passed. However, courts generally allow such amendments as long

as the original basis for removal jurisdiction does not change. 

See Barrow Dev. Co. v. Fulton Ins. Co., 418 F.2d 316, 318 (9th

Cir. 1969)(permitting amendment of removal petition to cure

inadequate allegation of the defendant’s citizenship). In this

case, defendants continue to assert diversity jurisdiction. 

Therefore, the court will allow the amendment. 

2

plaintiffs’ complaint, alleges that the Jaurans reside in

Magalia, California and that the CSAA “is a reciprocal interinsurance exchange - fully licensed to conduct business as an

insurance carrier in the State of California.” In their

opposition to the motion to remand, defendants further aver that,

according to the California Secretary of State, the CSAA is a

California corporation with its principal place of business in

California. (Opp’n at 4.) Finally, defendants allege that the

Jaurans live in Butte County, California where Mr. Jauran is

employed at a local community college. (Id.)

Based on the record before the court, there is nothing to

suggest that the adverse parties are not completely diverse. 

Moreover, plaintiffs do not dispute that they are California

citizens. They only quarrel with the sufficiency of defendants’

notice of removal. If plaintiffs do not believe that they are 1

California citizens, they can bring that fact to the court’s

attention, and, if appropriate, the court can hold an evidentiary

hearing. See Wright, Miller, & Cooper, Federal Practice and

Procedure, § 3739 (3d ed. 1998)(courts may conduct evidentiary

Case 2:06-cv-00530-DFL -KJM Document 9 Filed 05/15/06 Page 2 of 3
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

3

hearings where “factual issues are present”). Otherwise, the

court concludes that it has subject matter jurisdiction over this

case. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: 5/12/2006

DAVID F. LEVI

United States District Judge

Case 2:06-cv-00530-DFL -KJM Document 9 Filed 05/15/06 Page 3 of 3