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

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: July 24, 2025
• Docket: 1:24-cv-01015
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ANDY MUXLOW FARMS, LLC, CAL Case No. 1:24-cv-01015-KES-HBK MUXLOW and TY MUXLOW, 12 ORDER DIRECTING DEFENDANT Plaintiffs, NUTRIEN AG SOLUTIONS TO SHOW 13 CAUSE WHY THIS ACTION SHOULD v. NOT BE REMANDED TO STATE COURT 14 NUTRIEN AG SOLUTIONS, INC., OR- (Doc. No. 1) 15 CAL, INC., ORO AGRI, INC.,

16 Defendants. 17

18 This matter is before the Court sua sponte following a review of the pleadings. Because 19 this Court’s subject matter jurisdiction is not clearly established on the face of the pleadings, 20 Defendant Nutrien AG Solutions, Inc. will be allowed an opportunity to show cause why this 21 matter should not be remanded to state court. 22 I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY 23 On June 18, 2024, Plaintiffs Andy Muxlow Farms, LLC, Cal Muxlow, and Ty Muxlow 24 filed a complaint in the Tulare County Superior Court against Defendants Nutrien AG Solutions, 25 Inc. (“Nutrien”); Or-Cal, Inc. dba Orcal; Oro Agri, Inc (“Oro Agri”); Bayer Cropscience LP; 26 Brandt Consolidated, Inc.; and Does 1 to 50.1 (Doc. 1-1 at 5-17). The complaint raises various 27

28 1 The claims against Bayer and Brandt were subsequently voluntarily dismissed. (Doc. Nos. 8, 1 claims based on alleged damage to Plaintiffs’ stone fruit trees from products sold, manufactured,

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

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

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

5 ¶¶ 1-3, 6).

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

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

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

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

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

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

12 diversity.” (Id. at ¶ 14).

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

14 allegations. (Doc. No. 11 at 2 (admitting the allegation of paragraph 6 of the complaint)). Oro 15 Agri also brought a crossclaim, in which it asserted it “is a Missouri corporation with its principal 16 place of business in Fresno, California.” (Id. at 25). 17 II. LAW AND ANALYSIS 18 Courts “have an independent obligation to determine whether subject-matter jurisdiction 19 exists, even in the absence of a challenge from any party.” Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 20 514 (2006) (citation modified). Subject matter jurisdiction “can never be forfeited or waived.” 21 Id. Rather, “[t]he objection that a federal court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction … may be raised 22 by a party, or by a court on its own initiative, at any stage in the litigation, even after trial and the 23 entry of judgment.” Id. at 506. The “party asserting federal jurisdiction bears the burden of 24 proving the case is properly in federal court.” Farmers Direct Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Perez, 25 130 F.4th 748, 756 (9th Cir. 2025). Where, as here, a case is removed from state to federal court, 26 “[i]f at any time before final judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject matter 27

28 28). 1 jurisdiction, the case shall be remanded.” 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) (emphasis added).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

12 990.

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

14 citizen of California. (Doc. N o. 11 at 2, 25). Because all Plaintiffs are also citizens of California, 15 there is not complete diversity and this Court lacks jurisdiction over the entire action. See 16 Arbaugh, 546 U.S. at 502. Although Nutrien points to the citizenship of Oro Agri’s parent 17 company to support diversity, Oro Agri maintains separate citizenship from RovensaNext absent 18 a showing of an alter ego relationship between the corporations. 3123 SMB LLC v. Horn, 880 19 F.3d 461, 467-68 (9th Cir. 2018); see also Nike, 880 F.3d at 990-91 (considering citizenship of 20 both parent and subsidiary corporations in analyzing diversity between the parties). In the 21 absence of any evidence of such a relationship, it is Oro Agri’s citizenship that is relevant for 22 diversity purposes. As such, Oro Agri’s presence in this action destroys complete diversity and 23 this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. 24 Accordingly, it is ORDERED: 25 1. Within twenty-one (21) days of the date of this Order, Nutrien, as the party asserting 26 federal jurisdiction, shall show cause why this matter should not be remanded to the Tulare 27 County Superior Court. 28 2. Failure to respond to this order will result in the recommendation that the case be 1 | remanded based on a lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 2 Dated: _ July 24, 2025 law □□□ fareh fackt 4 HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA ; UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28