Gutierrez v. Costco Wholesale Corporation
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Gonzalo P. Curiel (author)
Analysis
The court considered an order to show cause regarding whether it had subject matter jurisdiction over a case removed to federal court. The court dissolved the order to show cause, finding that it had diversity jurisdiction because the plaintiff is a citizen of a foreign state who is not a permanent resident.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Dissolve Order to Show Cause“Therefore, the Court has diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(3) and the Court dissolves the order to show cause.” | agree with court The court correctly applied 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(3). The statute grants jurisdiction over actions between citizens of a state and citizens or subjects of a foreign state, with an exception only for those lawfully admitted for permanent residence and domiciled in the same state. The record indicates the plaintiff is a Mexican citizen who is neither a U.S. citizen nor a permanent resident. Therefore, the exception does not apply, and jurisdiction exists assuming the amount in controversy is met (which is presumed or not contested in this specific ruling context). |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly identifies the relevant statutory provision for foreign citizens who are not permanent residents. It relies on the declaration of defense counsel to establish the plaintiff's status, which is sufficient for this procedural determination. The reasoning is direct and supported by the cited statute.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MARIA GUADALUPE GUTIERREZ, Case No.: 21CV603 GPC(KSC)
12 Plaintiff, ORDER DISSOLVING ORDER TO 13 v. SHOW CAUSE 14 COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION; and DOES 1 to 50, 15 inclusive, 16 Defendant. 17 18 On April 8, 2021, the Court issues an order to show cause why the case should not 19 be remanded to state court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. (Dkt. No. 4.) 20 When removal is based on diversity of citizenship, the amount in controversy must 21 exceed $ 75,000, and the parties must be diverse where they are citizens of different 22 States. 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Moreover, the court will have jurisdiction between “citizens of 23 a State and citizens or subjects of a foreign state, except that the district courts shall not 24 have original jurisdiction under this subsection of an action between citizens of a State 25 and citizens or subjects of a foreign state who are lawfully admitted for permanent 26 residence in the United States and are domiciled in the same State.” 28 U.S.C. § 27 1332(a)(2); see Van Der Steen v. Sygen Int’l, PLC, 464 F. Supp. 2d 931 (2006) 28 1 (amendment to diversity jurisdiction statute was intended to eliminate federal jurisdiction 2 || over lawsuits between citizens and permanent resident aliens residing in the same state). 3 In response to the OSC, defense counsel asked Plaintiff's counsel to confirm 4 || Plaintiff's status and he replied that Plaintiff is a Mexican citizen and not a U.S. citizen 5 ||nor a permanent resident. (Dkt. No. 5-1, Holtz Decl. 2, 3.) Therefore, the Court has 6 || diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(3) and the Court dissolves the order to 7 show cause. 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. 9 ||Dated: April 20, 2021 10 Hon. athe Ck 11 United States District Judge 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28