Opinion
CV 24-2427-DMG (KSx)
11-18-2024
Hanwha General Insurance Co., Ltd. v. James Worldwide, Inc., et al.
Present: The Honorable DOLLY M. GEE, CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
CIVIL MINUTES-GENERAL
Proceedings: IN CHAMBERS-ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THIS CASE SHOULD NOT BE REMANDED TO ORANGE COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT
On September 5, 2024, Plaintiff Hanwha General Insurance Co., Ltd. filed a Complaint in Orange County Superior Court against Defendant James Worldwide, Inc., alleging one cause of action for breach of agreement and one cause of action for negligent hiring and supervision. See Notice of Removal (“NOR”), Ex. A at 3 (“Compl.”) [Doc. # 1-1]. On November 4, 2024, Defendant removed this action, invoking the Court's diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. section 1332(a). [Doc. # 1.]
All page references herein are to page numbers inserted by the CM/ECF system.
Under 28 U.S.C. section 1441(a), an action may be removed from a state court to a federal district court if the latter would have had “original jurisdiction” over the action had it been filed in that court. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 1332(a), a district court shall have jurisdiction over a civil action between citizens of different states in which the amount in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs. To establish diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. section 1332(a), there must be “complete diversity between the parties-each defendant must be a citizen of a different state from each plaintiff.” Diaz v. Davis (In re Digimarc Corp. Derivative Litig.), 549 F.3d 1223, 1234 (9th Cir. 2008). Further, “[a] civil action otherwise removable solely on the basis of the jurisdiction under [28 U.S.C.] section 1332(a) . . . may not be removed 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.” See 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b)(2). As there is a “‘strong presumption' against removal jurisdiction[,]” an action should be remanded “if there is any doubt as to the right of removal ....” See Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992).
Defendant asserts that it is incorporated in and has its principal place of business in California, and that Plaintiff is a citizen of the Republic of Korea. NOR ¶¶ 4, 5. Accordingly, Defendant's invocation of the diversity jurisdiction statute has run afoul of 28 U.S.C. section 1441(b)(2).
Defendant is hereby ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE why this action should not be remanded to Orange County Superior Court for improper removal. Defendant shall file a response by no later than November 25, 2024. Failure to timely file a satisfactory response by this deadline will result in the remand of this action to state court.
IT IS SO ORDERED.