Juan Franco v. Spectrum Brands Pet Group Inc.

• Court: District Court, C.D. California
• Decided: July 23, 2025
• Docket: 2:25-cv-06383
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JUAN FRANCO, Case No. 2:25-cv-06383-FLA (PVCx)

12 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY 13 v. ACTION SHOULD NOT BE REMANDED FOR LACK OF 14 SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION SPECTRUM BRANDS PET GROUP 15 INC., et al., 16 Defendants.

19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 ORDER 2 Federal courts are presumed to “lack jurisdiction unless the contrary appears 3 affirmatively from the record;” therefore, the party seeking federal jurisdiction bears 4 the burden of establishing it. See DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Cuno, 547 U.S. 332, 342 5 n. 3 (2006). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a), district courts have diversity jurisdiction 6 where each plaintiff’s citizenship is diverse from each defendant’s citizenship and the 7 amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs. Any civil 8 action brought in state court for which district courts have jurisdiction may be 9 removed. 28 U.S.C. § 1441. However, due to the “strong presumption” against 10 removal, “federal jurisdiction must be rejected if there is any doubt as to the right of 11 removal.” Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992). 12 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(1) (“Section 1446”), a notice of removal must 13 be filed within thirty (30) days after a defendant receives the initial pleading or 14 summons. Section 1446 is strictly construed against removal. Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 15 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992) (“We strictly construe the removal statute against 16 removal jurisdiction.”) (citation omitted). “If a notice of removal is filed after this 17 thirty-day window, it is untimely and remand to state court is therefore appropriate.” 18 Babasa v. LensCrafters, Inc., 498 F.3d 972, 974 (9th Cir. 2007). 19 The court has reviewed the Notice of Removal and is presently unable to 20 conclude this action was removed within thirty (30) days of receipt of the initial 21 pleading or summons, as required under Section 1446. 22 The parties are ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE, in writing only, within 23 fourteen (14) days from the date of this Order, why this action should not be remanded 24 for failure to remove within the thirty (30)-day window required by Section 1446. 25 The parties are encouraged to submit evidence and/or judicially noticeable facts in 26 response to the court’s Order. Responses shall be limited to ten (10) pages in length. 27 The parties should consider this Order to be a two-pronged inquiry into the facial and 28 factual sufficiency of Defendant’s demonstration of jurisdiction. See Leite v. Crane 1 | Co., 749 F.3d 1117, 1122 (9th Cir. 2014). 2 As Defendant is the party asserting federal jurisdiction, Defendant’s failure to 3 || respond timely and adequately to this Order shall result in remand of the action 4 | without further notice. 5 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 8 | Dated: July 23, 2025 9 FERNANDO'L. AENLLE-ROCHA United States District Judge 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28