Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_15-cv-02123/USCOURTS-azd-2_15-cv-02123-0/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 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Marshall Ben, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Union Pacific Railroad Company; Limon 

Hospitality, LLC; Bruce Rahmani; et al., 

Defendants. 

No. CV-15-02123-PHX-NVW

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 

The Notice of Removal (Doc. 1) fails to adequately allege subject matter and 

removal jurisdiction. 

The Notice of Removal claims the Court has original jurisdiction over the action 

under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. But it does not allege the state of principal place of business of 

Defendant Union Pacific Railroad Company. Breitman v. May Co. California, 37 F.3d 

562, 564 (9th Cir. 1994). Nor does it allege the identity and citizenship of every member 

of Defendant Limon Hospitality, LLC, which it claims is a limited liability company. See

Sonoma Falls Developers, LLC v. Nevada Gold & Casinos, Inc., 272 F. Supp. 2d 919, 

921-23 (N.D. Cal. 2003). 

The Notice of Removal also claims this action may be removed under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1441(a). But it does not allege that all Defendants have joined in or consented to the 

removal. 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(2)(A). Nor does it explain how Defendant Union Pacific 

Railroad Company can join in the removal now, given that the time to remove appears to 

Case 2:15-cv-02123-NVW Document 7 Filed 10/29/15 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 

have expired. 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(2)(B). Nor does it explain how this action can be 

removed at all, given that this action appears to be a civil action in a state court against a 

railroad arising under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act, 45 U.S.C. §§ 51 et seq. 28 

U.S.C. § 1445(a). 

These omissions matter because Defendants bear the burden of establishing 

federal jurisdiction and the removal statute is strictly construed against removal 

jurisdiction. Emrich v. Touche Ross & Co., 846 F.2d 1190, 1195 (9th Cir. 1988). 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendants Limon Hospitality, LLC and 

Bruce Rahmani show cause by November 6, 2015, why this action should not be 

remanded to the Superior Court. 

Dated this 29th day of October, 2015. 

Neil V. Wake

United States District Judge

Case 2:15-cv-02123-NVW Document 7 Filed 10/29/15 Page 2 of 2