Andy Muxlow Farms, LLC v. Nutrien Ag Solutions, Inc.

Opinion

ANDY MUXLOW FARMS, LLC, CAL Case No. 1:24-cv-01015-KES-HBK MUXLOW and TY MUXLOW, ORDER DIRECTING DEFENDANT Plaintiffs, NUTRIEN AG SOLUTIONS TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THIS ACTION SHOULD v. NOT BE REMANDED TO STATE COURT NUTRIEN AG SOLUTIONS, INC., OR- (Doc. No. 1)

Defendants.

This matter is before the Court sua sponte following a review of the pleadings. Because this Court’s subject matter jurisdiction is not clearly established on the face of the pleadings, Defendant Nutrien AG Solutions, Inc. will be allowed an opportunity to show cause why this matter should not be remanded to state court. I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY On June 18, 2024, Plaintiffs Andy Muxlow Farms, LLC, Cal Muxlow, and Ty Muxlow filed a complaint in the Tulare County Superior Court against Defendants Nutrien AG Solutions, Inc. (“Nutrien”); Or-Cal, Inc. dba Orcal; Oro Agri, Inc (“Oro Agri”); Bayer Cropscience LP; Brandt Consolidated, Inc.; and Does 1 to 50.1 (Doc. 1-1 at 5-17). The complaint raises various

1 The claims against Bayer and Brandt were subsequently voluntarily dismissed. (Doc. Nos. 8, claims based on alleged damage to Plaintiffs’ stone fruit trees from products sold, manufactured,

and/or recommended to Plaintiffs by Defendants. (See generally id.). Of relevance, the

complaint alleges that all Plaintiffs are citizens of California and Oro Agri “is a corporation

incorporated in Missouri, with its principal place of business in Fresno, California.” (Doc. 1-1 at

¶¶ 1-3, 6).

On August 26, 2024, Nutrien removed the action to this Court, alleging diversity

jurisdiction. (Doc. 1). Nutrien alleges “complete diversity of citizenship exists because Plaintiffs

are citizens of the State of California, and no defendant is a citizen of the State of California.”

(Doc. 1 at ¶ 5). Specifically, Nutrien represents Oro Agri “was sold to RovensaNext in 2021

prior to the events leading to this litigation” and RovensaNext is a Spanish corporation with its

principal place of business in Madrid, Spain” such that “it is a citizen of Spain for purposes of

diversity.” (Id. at ¶ 14).

After removal, Oro Agri answered the complaint, admitting Plaintiffs’ citizenship

allegations. (Doc. No. 11 at 2 (admitting the allegation of paragraph 6 of the complaint)). Oro Agri also brought a crossclaim, in which it asserted it “is a Missouri corporation with its principal place of business in Fresno, California.” (Id. at 25). Courts “have 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, 514 (2006) (citation modified). Subject matter jurisdiction “can never be forfeited or waived.” Id. Rather, “[t]he objection that a federal court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction … may be raised by a party, or by a court on its own initiative, at any stage in the litigation, even after trial and the entry of judgment.” Id. at 506. The “party asserting federal jurisdiction bears the burden of proving the case is properly in federal court.” Farmers Direct Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Perez, 130 F.4th 748, 756 (9th Cir. 2025). Where, as here, a case is removed from state to federal court, “[i]f at any time before final judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject matter

28). jurisdiction, the case shall be remanded.” 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) (emphasis added).

Federal courts have jurisdiction over civil actions between citizens of different states,

including where citizens of a foreign state are additional parties, so long as the amount in

controversy exceeds $75,000.00. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). There must be complete diversity

between plaintiffs and defendants for diversity jurisdiction to exist. Nike, Inc. v. Commercial

Iberica de Exclusivas Deportivas, S.A., 20 F.3d 987, 991 (9th Cir. 1994). For purposes of

diversity jurisdiction, a corporation “shall be deemed to be a citizen of every State and foreign

state by which it has been incorporated and of the State or foreign state where it has its principal

place of business.” 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1). There is “no distinction between corporations

incorporated in a state of the United States and those incorporated in a foreign country when

determining the corporation’s citizenship for purposes of diversity jurisdiction.” Nike, 20 F.3d at

990.

Here, Oro Agri has admitted its principal place of business is in California, making it a

citizen of California. (Doc. N o. 11 at 2, 25). Because all Plaintiffs are also citizens of California, there is not complete diversity and this Court lacks jurisdiction over the entire action. See Arbaugh, 546 U.S. at 502. Although Nutrien points to the citizenship of Oro Agri’s parent company to support diversity, Oro Agri maintains separate citizenship from RovensaNext absent a showing of an alter ego relationship between the corporations. 3123 SMB LLC v. Horn, 880 F.3d 461, 467-68 (9th Cir. 2018); see also Nike, 880 F.3d at 990-91 (considering citizenship of both parent and subsidiary corporations in analyzing diversity between the parties). In the absence of any evidence of such a relationship, it is Oro Agri’s citizenship that is relevant for diversity purposes. As such, Oro Agri’s presence in this action destroys complete diversity and this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. Accordingly, it is ORDERED: 1. Within twenty-one (21) days of the date of this Order, Nutrien, as the party asserting federal jurisdiction, shall show cause why this matter should not be remanded to the Tulare County Superior Court. 2. Failure to respond to this order will result in the recommendation that the case be remanded based on a lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Dated: _ July 24, 2025 law □□□ fareh fackt HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA ; UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE