Opinion
3:24-cv-03764-JSC
07-29-2024
BENICIA RESTAURANTS INC., Plaintiff, v. U.S. BANCORP, et al., Defendants.
ORDER TO SHOW CASE RE: DIVERSITY JURISDICTION
JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Benicia Restaurants, Inc. filed an action in state court alleging breach of contract and negligence claims against (1) U.S. Bancorp, dba U.S. Bank (“US Bank”); (2) “FirServ LLC” (“FirServ”); (3) Citibank, N.A. (“Citi”); and (4) “Capital One Financial LLC, dba Capital One” (“Capital One”). (Dkt. No. 1-1 at 2.) Citi has removed the case, asserting diversity jurisdiction. (Dkt. No. 1 ¶ 5.) Specifically, Citi states “(a) with respect to the defendants properly joined and served, this is a civil action between citizens of different states; and (b) the matter in controversy exceeds the sum of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs.” (Id.) Moreover, Citi alleges “this Court need not consider FirServ's citizenship because the Court need only consider the citizenship of those defendants ‘properly joined and served.'” (Id. ¶ 10 (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b)(2)). However, Citi does not explain why it alleges FirServ is improperly joined and its citizenship does not destroy diversity.
The Court has “an independent obligation to determine whether subject-matter jurisdiction exists, even in the absence of a challenge from any party.” Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 501 (2006). “[I]n a case that has been removed from state court to federal court under 28 U.S.C. § 1441 on the basis of diversity jurisdiction,” the defendant as “the proponent of federal jurisdiction . . . has the burden to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that removal is proper.” Geographic Expeditions, Inc. v. Est. of Lhotka ex rel. Lhotka, 599 F.3d 1102, 1106-07 (9th Cir. 2010). “The ‘strong presumption against removal jurisdiction means' . . . the court resolves all ambiguity in favor of remand to state court.” Hunter v. Philip Morris USA, 582 F.3d 1039, 1042 (9th Cir. 2009) (quoting Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir.1992) (per curiam)). Moreover, “[a] defendant invoking federal court diversity jurisdiction on the basis of fraudulent joinder bears a heavy burden since there is a general presumption against [finding] fraudulent joinder.” Grancare, LLC v. Thrower by & through Mills, 889 F.3d 543, 548 (9th Cir. 2018) (cleaned up).
So, the Court ORDERS Citi TO SHOW CAUSE as to this Court's subject matter jurisdiction. In particular, on or before August 5, 2024, Citi must file a supplemental submission establishing this Court diversity jurisdiction.
IT IS SO ORDERED