Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-00006/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-00006-0/pdf.json

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

---

1

3:18-cv-0006-CAB-(JMA)

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

E.P, a minor child, by and through his 

Guardian ad litem, EMMENLE 

PRESTON, Sr.; and MAJEL WILLIAMS, 

an individual,

Plaintiffs,

v.

CHULA VISTA CENTER, L.P.; ROUSE 

PROPERTIES, LLC; KONE, INC.; and 

DOES1-50, inclusive,

Defendants.

Case No.: 3:18-cv-0006-CAB-(JMA)

ORDER REMANDING ACTION FOR 

LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER 

JURISDICTION

On July 10, 2017, Plaintiffs commenced this personal injury suit against Defendants 

in the San Diego Superior Court. [Doc. No. 1-2 at 6-25.] On January 2, 2018, Defendants 

removed this action to federal court on the basis of diversity jurisdiction. [Doc. No. 1.] 

On January 3, 2018, this Court ordered Defendants to show cause on or before 

January 10, 2018, why this matter should not be remanded for lack of subject matter 

jurisdiction. [Doc. No. 2.] Specifically, the Court was concerned whether there is complete 

diversity among the parties. Rather than respond to the order to show cause, Defendants 

filed a Motion to Request Additional Time to Submit Briefing Responsive to the OSC re 

Jurisdiction [Doc. No. 4] on January 10, 2018. But, the Court declines to grant the 

extension because Defendants should have ascertained the citizenship of all of the 

Case 3:18-cv-00006-CAB-JMA Document 5 Filed 01/11/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2

3:18-cv-0006-CAB-(JMA)

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

members/partners prior to filing the notice of removal proffering the diversity of the 

parties. 

By failing to respond to the Order to Show Cause Defendants have not assuaged the

Court’s concerns regarding jurisdiction. In order to invoke this Court’s diversity 

jurisdiction, Defendants must demonstrate there is complete diversity of citizenship 

between the parties and that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. Caterpillar Inc. 

v. Lewis, 519 U.S. 61, 68 (1996). To meet their burden to establish complete diversity, 

Defendants must allege the actual citizenship of all of its members/partners. Provincial 

Gov’t of Marinduque v. Placer Dome, Inc., 582 F.3d 1083, 1087 (9th Cir. 2009). Here, the 

vague assurances provided that all entities related to Defendants are Delaware entities with

their principal places of business in New York, NY are not sufficient. Furthermore, the 

myriad of reasons1 provided by Defendants for needing more time to comply with the OSC 

is evidence that Defendants have not determined the existence of complete diversity

between the parties. Thus, although being given the opportunity to do so, Defendants have 

not met their burden of demonstrating there is complete diversity of citizenship.

Because Defendants fail to establish diversity jurisdiction as required by 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1332 and 1441 removal was improper and the Court sua sponte REMANDS this action 

back to the San Diego Superior Court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C 

§ 1447(c) (“[i]f at any time before final judgment it appears that the district court lacks 

subject matter jurisdiction, the case shall be remanded.”). See also Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 

F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992) (the removal statute is strictly construed, and any doubt about 

the right of removal requires resolution in favor of remand); Polo v. Innoventions Int’l., 

LLC, 833 F.3d 1193, 1197 (9th Cir. 2016) (if federal jurisdiction is absent from the 

 

1 Defendants request an extension to respond to the OSC because (1) they need to contact other 

organizations not parties to this action; (2) one of the Defendants has undergone a corporate reorganization

and relocation; (3) they are reluctant to disclose “confidential business information or proprietary data or 

identities of members/partners without some measure of protection;” and (4) “while Defendants 

understand the Court must be satisfied there is complete diversity, Defendants should not be required to 

disclose the entire hierarchy of their corporate formation and operations.” [Doc. No. 4 at 3.] 

Case 3:18-cv-00006-CAB-JMA Document 5 Filed 01/11/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3

3:18-cv-0006-CAB-(JMA)

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

commencement of a case, [a case] is not “properly removed” – and therefore need not “stay 

[] removed.”) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Additionally, the Court 

DENIES Defendants’ motion for extension of time. [Doc. No. 4.]

It is SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 11, 2018

Case 3:18-cv-00006-CAB-JMA Document 5 Filed 01/11/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3