Madrigal v. SMG Extol, LLC

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 CESAR MADRIGAL, 10 Case No. 22-cv-07351-RS Plaintiff, 11 v. ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 12 REMAND SMG EXTOL, LLC, et al., 13 Defendants. 14

15 16 Plaintiff filed this wage and hour action in August 2022 in the Superior Court of California 17 for the County of Alameda. Defendants SMG Extol, LLC, and Direct Line Global, LLC, both 18 California limited liability companies, timely removed to federal court based on diversity of 19 citizenship under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. See Dkt. 1. Plaintiff now moves to remand the case to state 20 court. This motion is suitable for disposition without oral argument. See Civ. L.R. 7-1(b). 21 The motion is denied. Plaintiff’s primary objection is that Defendants failed to include 22 adequate support for their assertion that Plaintiff is diverse. Yet Defendants clearly stated in the 23 notice of removal that, on information and belief, Plaintiff “is a citizen of the state of Iowa and not 24 a citizen of California.” Dkt. 1 ¶ 15. The supporting declaration further suggests that Plaintiff had 25 previously indicated his intent to relocate to Iowa, and that he is currently residing there. See Dkt. 26 1-2 ¶ 4. Plaintiff is correct that there is a “strong presumption against removal jurisdiction,” that 27 “the defendant always has the burden of establishing that removal is proper,” and that any 1 1042 (9th Cir. 2009); see Dkt. 12, at 3-4. The problem is that Defendants have met their burden, 2 and there is not (at present) ambiguity as to Plaintiff’s citizenship. See Kanter v. Warner-Lambert 3 Co., 265 F.3d 853, 857 (9th Cir. 2001) (defendants were “merely required to allege (not to prove) 4 || diversity” at the removal stage). Indeed, if Plaintiff countered with a declaration or other evidence 5 showing he is a citizen of California, the matter would be settled and remand would be 6 appropriate. See, e.g., Roehm v. Ford Motor Co., No. 18cv1278 JM(JMA), 2018 WL 4520542 7 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 21, 2018). Given that he has not, remand is inappropriate at this time.! The motion 8 is therefore denied, without prejudice. 9 10 || ITISSO ORDERED. 11 a 12 Dated: January 20, 2023 '

RICHARD SEEBORG 14 Chief United States District Judge 15 16

= 17

Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 | Additionally, Plaintiff’s focus on Defendants’ alleged use of “hearsay” evidence in support of 26 || proving Plaintiffs citizenship, see Dkt. 12, at 6-7, is misguided. See, e.g., Canesco v. Ford Motor Co., 570 F. Supp. 3d 872, 883 (S.D. Cal. 2021) (suggesting district courts may consider evidence 27 that would be inadmissible at trial when determining diversity of citizenship). 28 ORDER DENYING MOTION TO REMAND CASE No. 22-cv-07351-RS