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 DISCHARGING PREVIOUS 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 

On October 21, 2015, Defendants Limon Hospitality, LLC and Bruce Rahmani 

filed a Notice of Removal claiming that this Court has original jurisdiction over this 

action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332 and that the action is therefore removable pursuant to 

28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). (Doc. 1 at 3.) 

On October 29, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause why the action should 

not be remanded in light of the Notice of Removal’s failure to allege subject matter and 

removal jurisdiction. (Doc. 7.) Regarding subject matter jurisdiction, the Court noted 

that the Notice of Removal (i) did not allege the principal place of business of Defendant 

Union Pacific Railroad Company and (ii) did not allege the citizenship of every member 

of Limon Hospitality, LLC. (Id. at 1.) Regarding removal jurisdiction, the Court noted 

that (i) the Notice of Removal did not allege Union Pacific Railroad Company’s consent 

to removal, (ii) such consent would now seem untimely, and (iii) in any event the action 

appears nonremovable pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1445(a). (Id. at 1-2.) 

Case 2:15-cv-02123-NVW Document 15 Filed 02/18/16 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 

On November 4, Limon Hospitality, LLC and Bruce Rahmani filed a Response 

addressing the Court’s concerns. (Doc. 7.) Regarding subject matter jurisdiction, the 

Response (i) contends that the Notice of Removal’s identification of Union Pacific 

Railroad Company’s Nebraska headquarters suffices to allege its principal place of 

business, and (ii) identifies a Colorado corporation headquartered in Colorado as the sole 

member of Limon Hospitality, LLC. (Id. at 1-2.) These responses satisfy the Court’s 

subject matter jurisdiction concerns. 

Regarding removal jurisdiction, the Response points out that the potential defects 

identified in the Court’s order—lack of unanimous consent to removal, untimeliness of 

such consent, and nonremovability under 28 U.S.C. § 1445(a)—are procedural rather 

than jurisdictional. See Emrich v. Touche Ross & Co., 846 F.2d 1190, 1193 n.1 (9th Cir. 

1988) (lack of unanimous consent); Smith v. Mylan, Inc., 761 F.3d 1042, 1045 (9th Cir. 

2014) (untimeliness); Feichko v. Denver & Rio Grande W. R. Co., 213 F.3d 586, 591 

(10th Cir. 2000) (nonremovability under 28 U.S.C. § 1445(a)); accord Vasquez v. N. Cty. 

Transit Dist., 292 F.3d 1049, 1062 (9th Cir. 2002) (nonremovability under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1445(c)). As a result, the Court may remand for these defects only upon a motion to 

remand made within thirty days after the filing of the Notice of Removal. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1447(c); see also Smith, 761 F.3d at 1044. No such motion has been made, and the 

thirty-day window has long passed. Plaintiff is deemed to have waived these objections 

to removal. 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Order to Show Cause (Doc. 7) is 

discharged. 

 Dated this 18th day of February, 2016. 

Neil V. Wake

United States District Judge

Case 2:15-cv-02123-NVW Document 15 Filed 02/18/16 Page 2 of 2