Daniel Chu v. GRCA2 Development, LLC

C.D. California

Daniel Chu v. GRCA2 Development, LLC

DecidedSeptember 8, 2022

Docket2:22-cv-06020

StatusUnknown

This text of Daniel Chu v. GRCA2 Development, LLC (Daniel Chu v. GRCA2 Development, LLC) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, C.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Daniel Chu v. GRCA2 Development, LLC, (C.D. Cal. 2022).

Pincite

Opinion

Case 2:22-cv-06020-GW-E Document 13 Filed 09/08/22 Page 1 of 1 Page ID #:217

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Case No. CV 22-6020-GW-Ex Date September 8, 2022 Title Daniel Chu v. GRCA2 Development, LLC, et al.

Present: The Honorable GEORGE H. WU, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Javier Gonzalez None Present Deputy Clerk Court Reporter / Recorder Tape No. Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs: Attorneys Present for Defendants: None Present None Present PROCEEDINGS (IN CHAMBERS): ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION Defendants GRCA2 Development, LLC (“GRCA2”) and Gerald Wiener (“Wiener”) removed this action to this Court on August 24, 2022, asserting that this Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to the considerations relevant for establishing diversity jurisdiction. In doing so, however, they do not appear to have alleged the citizenship of their co-defendant, CAA General Contractor, Inc. (“CAA”). For purposes of the issue of subject matter jurisdiction, it does not matter if CAA had not been served at the time of removal, or even still has not been served. See, e.g., Preaseau v. Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 591 F.2d 74, 78-79 (9th Cir. 1979). Its citizenship still must be taken into account. The Court has an independent obligation to confirm its subject matter jurisdiction over every action before it. See Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 514 (2006) (indicating that courts must assure themselves of the existence of subject matter jurisdiction before proceeding); Valdez v. Allstate Ins. Co., 372 F.3d 1115, 1116 (9th Cir. 2004) (same). As the removing parties, GRCA2 and Wiener have the burden of making an allegation of citizenship as to CAA. See Corral v. Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc., 878 F.3d 770, 773 (9th Cir. 2017). The Court orders them to do so in a filing no later than September 22, 2022. Absent such a filing, the Court will remand the matter for lack of a sufficient demonstration of subject matter jurisdiction. It is so ordered. : Initials of Preparer JG CV-90 (06/04) CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Page 1 of 1

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Case 2:22-cv-06020-GW-E Document 13 Filed 09/08/22 Page 1 of 1 Page ID #:217

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Case No. CV 22-6020-GW-Ex Date September 8, 2022 Title Daniel Chu v. GRCA2 Development, LLC, et al.

Present: The Honorable GEORGE H. WU, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Javier Gonzalez None Present Deputy Clerk Court Reporter / Recorder Tape No. Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs: Attorneys Present for Defendants: None Present None Present PROCEEDINGS (IN CHAMBERS): ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION Defendants GRCA2 Development, LLC (“GRCA2”) and Gerald Wiener (“Wiener”) removed this action to this Court on August 24, 2022, asserting that this Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to the considerations relevant for establishing diversity jurisdiction. In doing so, however, they do not appear to have alleged the citizenship of their co-defendant, CAA General Contractor, Inc. (“CAA”). For purposes of the issue of subject matter jurisdiction, it does not matter if CAA had not been served at the time of removal, or even still has not been served. See, e.g., Preaseau v. Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 591 F.2d 74, 78-79 (9th Cir. 1979). Its citizenship still must be taken into account. The Court has an independent obligation to confirm its subject matter jurisdiction over every action before it. See Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 514 (2006) (indicating that courts must assure themselves of the existence of subject matter jurisdiction before proceeding); Valdez v. Allstate Ins. Co., 372 F.3d 1115, 1116 (9th Cir. 2004) (same). As the removing parties, GRCA2 and Wiener have the burden of making an allegation of citizenship as to CAA. See Corral v. Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc., 878 F.3d 770, 773 (9th Cir. 2017). The Court orders them to do so in a filing no later than September 22, 2022. Absent such a filing, the Court will remand the matter for lack of a sufficient demonstration of subject matter jurisdiction. It is so ordered. : Initials of Preparer JG CV-90 (06/04) CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Page 1 of 1

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Daniel Chu v. GRCA2 Development, LLC, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/daniel-chu-v-grca2-development-llc-cacd-2022.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack