Kamala Maria Duplessis v. T.J. Maxx of California, LLC

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: March 31, 2026
• Docket: 4:25-cv-08870
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 KAMALA MARIA DUPLESSIS, Case No. 25-cv-08870-JST

8 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: 9 v. JURISDICTION

10 T.J. MAXX OF CALIFORNIA, LLC, Re: ECF No. 10 Defendant. 11

12 13 Plaintiff Kamala Maria Duplessis filed this case in state court on February 11, 2025. ECF 14 No. 1-1 at 3. She named T.J. Maxx of California LLC as a defendant, along with 50 Doe 15 defendants. Id. 16 Stating that it was “erroneously sued as TJ Maxx of CA, LLC,” HomeGoods, Inc. 17 answered the complaint on September 17, 2025. ECF No. 1-2 at 2. HomeGoods filed a notice of 18 removal in this Court on October 16, 2025, asserting diversity jurisdiction. ECF No. 1 at 3–4. It 19 did not file the notice in state court until December 12, 2025. ECF No. 16-4. 20 Duplessis filed a motion to remand on January 12, 2026. ECF No. 10. Her motion argued 21 that removal was defective because HomeGoods failed to “[p]romptly” provide notice to the 22 adverse parties and file a copy of the notice in state court, as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1446(d). Her 23 reply brief raised an additional argument that diversity jurisdiction is lacking because Defendant 24 T.J. Maxx of California LLC is a “California entity.” ECF No. 17 at 3. The Court ordinarily need 25 not consider arguments raised only on reply. Est. of Saunders v. Comm’r, 745 F.3d 953, 962 n.10 26 (9th Cir. 2014). But since Duplessis’s argument goes to the Court’s subject matter jurisdiction, it 27 can “be raised at any time during the proceedings.” Hansen v. Dep’t of Treasury, 528 F.3d 597, ] In response to Duplessis’s reply argument, HomeGoods filed a request for judicial notice 2 || suggesting that T.J. Maxx of CA, LLC was formed in Virginia with a mailing address in 3 Massachusetts. ECF No. 18. This is insufficient to determine whether the Court has diversity 4 |} jurisdiction because it says nothing about the LLC’s members, and ‘“‘an LLC is a citizen of every 5 state of which its owners/members are citizens.” Johnson v. Columbia Props. Anchorage, LP, 437 6 || F.3d 894, 899 (9th Cir. 2006). 7 In addition, neither party addressed whether HomeGoods, a non-party, had the ability to 8 || remove this case to federal court. The Ninth Circuit has explained that when a non-named party 9 || removes a case, the district court lacks jurisdiction because “only the named defendant or the 10 || defendants may remove a case” under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). Sharma v. HSI Asset Loan Obligation 11 Tr. 2007-1 by Deutsche Bank Nat’l Tr. Co., 23 F 4th 1167, 1173 (9th Cir. 2022) (citation 12 || modified). The removal statute “contains no language allowing mistakenly omitted parties, 13 || wrongly excluded parties, or any other type of non-defendant to remove an action to federal 14 || court.” /d. at 1170. Thus, where, as here, the removing party is a non-party who claims the 15 || plaintiffs erroneously sued a different entity and the non-party is the proper defendant, the case 16 should be remanded. Janis v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, No. 2:24-CV-314-MKD, 2024 WL 17 || 4589989 (E.D. Wash. Oct. 28, 2024). Zz 18 In light of the above, HomeGoods is ordered to show cause as to why this case should not 19 || be remanded on grounds that HomeGoods lacked authority to remove the case and that, even if 20 || had such authority, it has not established diversity jurisdiction because it does not adequately 21 address the citizenship of Defendant T.J. Maxx of CA, LLC. HomeGoods shall file a written 22 || response to this order within 14 days. Duplessis may file a reply no later than 7 days thereafter. 23 || Unless otherwise ordered, the matter will then be taken under submission without oral argument. 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. 25 Dated: March 31, 2026 . .

26 JON S. TIGA 7 United States District Judge 28