Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_18-cv-04578/USCOURTS-cand-4_18-cv-04578-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Personal Injury

---

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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

AUNTRELL BROOKS,

Plaintiff,

v.

THE GEO GROUP, INC.,

Defendant.

Case No. 18-cv-04578-DMR 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE; ORDER 

VACATING JULY 11, 2019 HEARING 

AND CASE MANAGEMENT 

CONFERENCE

Plaintiff Auntrell Brooks filed this action against Defendant The GEO Group Inc. in the 

Superior Court of Alameda County on June 20, 2018. On July 27, 2018, Defendant removed the 

action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441 on the basis of diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. 

[Docket No. 1 (Notice of Removal) ¶ 4.] Plaintiff subsequently filed a motion to amend the 

complaint to join Reginald Peterson and Matthew Lange as defendants and to remand this action 

to state court, which is set for hearing on July 11, 2019. [Docket No. 38.] 

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441, “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 

other defendants, to the district court of the United States for the district and division embracing 

the place where such action is pending.” 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). “If the district court at any time 

determines that it lacks jurisdiction over the removed action, it must remedy the improvident grant 

of removal by remanding the action to state court.” Cal. ex rel. Lockyer v. Dynegy, Inc., 375 F.3d 

831, 838 (9th Cir.), opinion amended on denial of reh’g, 387 F.3d 966 (9th Cir. 2004) (citing 28 

U.S.C. § 1447). “The removal statute is strictly construed against removal jurisdiction, and the 

burden of establishing federal jurisdiction falls to the party invoking the statute.” Id. 

Having reviewed Plaintiff’s motion and the record in this case, the court determines that it 

is not clear that the court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action. A district court has 

diversity jurisdiction where the matter is between “citizens of different States” and the amount in 

Case 4:18-cv-04578-DMR Document 48 Filed 07/05/19 Page 1 of 2
2

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

Northern District of California

controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1). In its notice of 

removal, Defendant avers that it is a citizen of Florida. It also states that “Plaintiff and his counsel 

are located in California,” which is apparently a reference to Plaintiff’s residence, but Defendant 

does not allege Plaintiff’s citizenship. Notice of Removal ¶ 4. A natural person’s state citizenship 

is determined by his or her state of domicile. Kanter v. Warner-Lambert Co., 265 F.3d 853, 857 

(9th Cir. 2001). “A person’s domicile is her permanent home, where she resides with the intention 

to remain or to which she intends to return. A person residing in a given state is not necessarily 

domiciled there, and thus is not necessarily a citizen of that state.” Id. (internal citation omitted). 

The removal notice here fails to allege the domicile of Plaintiff for diversity purposes. Therefore, 

by no later than July 19, 2019, Defendant must show cause in writing why the removal is proper 

by addressing the question of Plaintiff’s citizenship for purposes of diversity jurisdiction. 

The July 11, 2019 hearing on Plaintiff’s motion is VACATED and the case management 

conference is CONTINUED to July 31, 2019 at 1:30 p.m. The parties’ joint case management 

statement is due by July 24, 2019. The court notes that on July 2, 2019, the parties filed a 

stipulation attempting to change a number of case management dates without first consulting the 

court, including the dispositive motion hearing date and the trial date. [Docket No. 46.] The court 

denied the request in part on that basis. [Docket No. 47.] The court intends to re-examine the case 

schedule at the July 31, 2019 case management conference. The parties must address any request 

to continue other deadlines in the joint case management statement.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 5, 2019

______________________________________

Donna M. Ryu

United States Magistrate Judge

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORN

I

A

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge Donna M. Ryu

Case 4:18-cv-04578-DMR Document 48 Filed 07/05/19 Page 2 of 2