Quirarte v. FCA US LLC
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Larry Alan Burns (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed Defendant's response to an order to show cause regarding diversity jurisdiction, finding that Defendant failed to adequately plead Plaintiff's citizenship. The court ordered Defendant to either file an amended notice of removal or seek jurisdictional discovery within 14 days, warning that failure to comply will result in remand.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Defendant's response to the order to show cause is insufficient to establish diversity jurisdiction.“The response does not show that Defendant needs discovery, or that it has tried to obtain the information necessary to plead diversity without resorting to discovery.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the principle that the party invoking federal jurisdiction bears the burden of proving it. The order notes that Defendant failed to address the specific concern that Plaintiff might be an alien, which is a prerequisite for state citizenship in diversity cases. The court's requirement for Defendant to either plead the facts or seek discovery is a standard procedural mechanism to resolve jurisdictional doubts. |
Defendant is ordered to file an amended notice of removal or an ex parte motion for jurisdictional discovery within 14 days, failing which the case will be remanded.“Within 14 calendar days of the date this order is issued, Defendant must either file an amended notice of removal alleging all required jurisdictional facts, or else file an ex parte motion to take jurisdictional discovery. If Defendant fails to comply with this order within the time permitted, this action will be remanded.” | agree with court This is a standard procedural order to cure a jurisdictional defect. The court is exercising its inherent power to ensure it has subject matter jurisdiction. The threat of remand is appropriate given the 'strong presumption' against removal jurisdiction cited in the order. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly identifies the jurisdictional defect (failure to plead Plaintiff's citizenship) and applies the correct legal standards regarding the burden of proof for jurisdiction and the presumption against removal. It provides a clear path for the Defendant to cure the defect or face remand. The reasoning is sound and supported by binding Ninth Circuit and Supreme Court authority.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 PAUL QUIRARTE Case No.: 20cv1034-LAB (AGS)
12 Plaintiff, ORDER REQURING 13 v. SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING ON JURISDICTION 14 FCA US LLC 15 Defendant. 16 17 Defendant removed this action from state court, citing diversity jurisdiction. 18 Because the notice of removal did not adequate plead the parties’ citizenship, the 19 Court ordered Defendants to show cause why the case should not be remanded. 20 Defendant has now filed its response, which partially addresses the Court’s 21 order to show cause, but leaves Plaintiff’s citizenship uncertain. The major problem 22 here is that Defendant is an alien, and has failed to address the Court’s concern 23 that Plaintiff may likewise be an alien, even if he is a permanent resident and 24 domiciled in California. See Kanter v. Warner-Lambert, 265 F.3d 853, 857 (9th 25 Cir. 2001) (to be a citizen of a state for diversity purposes, a natural person must 26 first be a U.S. citizen, and also must be domiciled in the state, rather than merely 27 residing there); Van Der Steen v. Sygen Int’l, PLC, 464 F. Supp. 2d 931, 936–37 28 (N.D. Cal., 2006) (holding that a permanent resident alien domiciled in California 1 is not diverse from an overseas corporation). Most of the response is taken up with 2 arguing that alleging his residence is enough to establish his state citizenship. 3 Only in the final paragraph of the response do they offer to address the issue 4 of Plaintiff’s national citizenship, if the Court grants them jurisdictional discovery. 5 The response does not show that Defendant needs discovery, or that it has tried 6 to obtain the information necessary to plead diversity without resorting to 7 discovery. For example, neither the response nor the supporting declaration shows 8 that Defendant’s counsel has asked Plaintiff’s counsel about Plaintiff’s national 9 citizenship. Plaintiff is of course under no obligation to plead jurisdictional facts or 10 help Defendant litigate against him, but by the same token there seems little 11 reason not to ask. 12 The Court is obligated to confirm its own jurisdiction, sua sponte if necessary. 13 See United Investors Life Ins. Co. v. Waddell & Reed Inc., 360 F.3d 960, 966 (9th 14 Cir. 2004). The Court must presume it lacks jurisdiction, until the party invoking the 15 Court’s jurisdiction proves otherwise. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 16 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). There is a “strong presumption” against removal 17 jurisdiction, and “[f]ederal jurisdiction must be rejected if there is any doubt as to 18 the right of removal in the first instance.” Gaus v. Miles, 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 19 1992) (citations omitted). 20 Within 14 calendar days of the date this order is issued, Defendant must 21 either file an amended notice of removal alleging all required jurisdictional facts, or 22 else file an ex parte motion to take jurisdictional discovery. If it files a motion, 23 Plaintiff may file an opposition within 7 calendar days. No reply should be filed 24 without leave. No hearing will be held unless the Court so orders. 25 / / / 26 / / / 27 / / / 28 / / / 1 If Defendant fails to comply with this order within the time permitted, this 2 action will be remanded. 3 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 Dated: June 29, 2020 6 7 Honorable Larry Alan Burns Chief United States District Judge 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28