Opinion
24-cv-04596-JSC
08-05-2024
CYNTHIA CRAFT, Plaintiff, v. LONGS DRUG STORES CALIFORNIA, L.L.C., et al., Defendants.
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: DIVERSITY JURISDICTION RE: DKT. NO. 1
JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Cynthia Craft sues Defendants Longs Drug Stores California L.L.C. (“Longs”) and FW Ca-Bay Hill Shopping Center LLC (“Bay Hill”) for claims arising from a “trip and fall that occurred on or about November 26, 2023.” (Dkt. No. 1-2 ¶ 1.) Defendant Longs removed this action based on diversity jurisdiction, alleging Ms. Craft and Longs are diverse. (Dkt. No. 1 ¶¶ 610.) But a civil action may not be removed based on diversity jurisdiction “if any of the parties in interest properly joined and served as defendants is a citizen of the State in which such action is brought.” 28 U.S.C.A. § 1441(b)(2); see Lincoln Prop. Co. v. Roche, 546 U.S. 81, 90 (2005) (“An in-state plaintiff may invoke diversity jurisdiction, but § 1441(b) bars removal on the basis of diversity if any party in interest properly joined and served as a defendant is a citizen of the State in which the action is brought.” (cleaned up)). Longs's notice of removal fails to allege the citizenship of Defendant Bay Hill, and thus fails to establish the Court has federal subject-matter jurisdiction over this action based on diversity.
Record citations are to material in the Electronic Case File (“ECF”); pinpoint citations are to the ECF-generated page numbers at the top of the documents.
Accordingly, Longs shall make a supplemental filing setting forth the citizenship of each member of Bay Hill by August 12, 2024. See Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994) (“Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction.... It is to be presumed that a cause lies outside this limited jurisdiction, and the burden of establishing the contrary rests upon the party asserting jurisdiction.” (cleaned up)); see also Hertz Corp. v. Friend, 559 U.S. 77, 94 (2010) (“Courts have an independent obligation to determine whether subject-matter jurisdiction exists, even when no party challenges it.”).
IT IS SO ORDERED.