Thomas R. LaFleur v. Porsche Cars North America, Inc.
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Anthony J. Battaglia (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed Defendant's amended notice of removal, which contained conflicting assertions regarding the Defendant's corporate form (LLC vs. Corporation) and failed to allege the citizenship of the LLC members. The court ordered the action remanded to state court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Remand to state court“The Court REMANDS the action back to state court.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the principle that removal statutes are strictly construed and doubts are resolved in favor of remand. The Defendant's amended notice failed to establish jurisdiction because it contained internal contradictions (asserting the entity is an LLC while providing evidence it is a Stock Corporation) and failed to allege the citizenship of the LLC members, which is required to establish diversity for an LLC. The court's reliance on the strict construction of removal statutes and the specific deficiencies in the Defendant's pleading supports the decision to remand. |
The order itself: sound — The order is sound. It correctly identifies the legal standard for removal (strict construction, doubts resolved in favor of remand) and applies it to the specific factual deficiencies in the Defendant's amended notice (conflicting entity types and missing member citizenship allegations). The court cites the appropriate Ninth Circuit authority for the standard of review and the statutory basis for jurisdiction.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 THOMAS R. LAFLEUR, Case No.: 26-cv-03967-AJB-MSB 12 Plaintiff, ORDER REMANDING ACTION 13 v. FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION 14 PORSCHE CARS NORTH AMERICA, INC., 15 Defendant. 16 17 On June 8, 2026, Plaintiff Thomas R. LaFleur (“Plaintiff”) filed a Complaint 18 alleging two causes action against Defendant Porsche Cars North America, Inc. 19 (“Defendant”). (Doc. No. 1 at 7–11.) On July 9, 2026, Defendant removed the instant 20 action to federal court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332,1 1441,2 and 1446. (Doc. No. 1.) On 21 July 10, 2026, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause as to why the action should not be 22 remanded for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. (Doc. No. 4.) 23 24 25 1 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a), “[a] federal court has [original] jurisdiction over the underlying dispute if the suit is between citizens of different states, and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 26 exclusive of interest and costs (i.e., diversity jurisdiction).” Geographic Expeditions, Inc. v. Est. of Lhotka ex rel. Lhotka, 599 F.3d 1102, 1106 (9th Cir. 2010). 27 2 “[A]ny 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 the defendants, to the district court of the United 28 l Now before the Court is Defendant’s amended notice of removal. (Doc. No. 5.) As 2 || with the initial filing, the amended notice asserts “Defendant PCNA, at the time this action 3 || was commenced, was and still is a limited liability company,” provides the rule for 4 ||determining citizenship of an LLC, and then proceeds to assert the factual basis for 5 ||demonstrating citizenship of a corporation. (Ud. 7.) As support, Counsel for 6 ||Defendant Nathaniel R. Cowden avers “Defendant PCNA, at the time this action was 7 || commenced, was and still is a limited liability company organized under the laws of the 8 || State of Delaware, with its principal place of business in the State of Georgia, and was not 9 is not organized under the laws of the State of California, wherein this action was 10 || brought.” (Doc. No. 5 at 6, Decl. of Nathaniel R. Cowden, { 4.) No where does Defendant 11 || allege the members of the purported LLC or their citizenship. (See generally Doc. No. 5.) 12 || Defendant also attaches a print-out from the California Secretary of State Business/Entity 13 ||Search Portal, which reflects “Entity Type: Stock Corporation — Out of State — Stock.” 14 (Doc. No. 5-3 at 4.) 15 In this second attempt to properly allege diversity jurisdiction, Defendant’s 16 assertions and evidence are in conflict. “The removal statute is strictly construed, and any 17 || doubt about the right of removal requires resolution in favor of remand.” Moore-Thomas 18 || v. Alaska Airlines, Inc., 553 F.3d 1241, 1244 (9th Cir. 2009). Thus, Defendant has not met 19 burden to establish jurisdiction is proper in this Court. The Court REMANDS the action 20 || back to state court. 21 IT IS SO ORDERED. 22 Dated: July 14, 2026 © g 23 Hon. Anthony J.Battaglia 24 United States District Judge 25 26 27 28