Marisa Melendez v. Jaguar Land Rover North America, LLC

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: February 18, 2026
• Docket: 5:26-cv-01360
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9

10 MARISA MELENDEZ, Case No. 26-cv-01360-NC 11 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY 12 CASE SHOULD NOT BE v. REMANDED TO STATE COURT 13 FOR LACK OF SUBJECT JAGUAR LAND ROVER NORTH MATTER JURISDICTION 14 AMERICA, LLC, Re: ECF 1 15 Defendant. 16

17 18 Defendant Jaguar Land Rover North America, LLC removed this case to this Court 19 from Santa Clara County Superior Court on February 13, 2026. ECF 1. This Order 20 requires Defendant to “show cause” by filing a written response by March 4, 2026, 21 explaining why this case should not be remanded back to state court for lack of subject 22 matter jurisdiction. 23 Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. 24 Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). District courts have subject matter jurisdiction 25 through federal question or diversity jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332. Diversity 26 jurisdiction requires complete diversity of citizenship and an amount in controversy greater 27 than $75,000. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). Defendant alleges that this case involves diversity 1 Defendant claims that there is diversity of citizenship because Defendant is a 2 “resident of New Jersey and Delaware” and Plaintiff is a “resident of the State of 3 California.” ECF 1 ¶ 31. But the diversity jurisdiction statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1332, speaks 4 of citizenship, not residency. 5 As to Defendant, because it is an LLC, citizenship is determined by the citizenship 6 of its members. Johnson v. Columbia Props. Anchorage, LP, 437 F.3d 894, 899 (9th Cir. 7 2006) ([A]n LLC is a citizen of every state of which its owners/members are citizens.”). 8 Thus, because Defendant’s sole member was incorporated in England and Wales and its 9 principal place of business is in the United Kingdom, Defendant is a citizen of the United 10 Kingdom. ECF 1 ¶ 30. 11 As to Plaintiff, “[t]he natural person’s state citizenship is then determined by her 12 state of domicile, not her state of residence.” Kanter v. Warner-Lambert Co., 265 F.3d 13 853, 857 (9th Cir. 2001) (citations omitted). “A person’s domicile is her permanent home, 14 where she resides with the intention to remain or to which she intends to return . . . A 15 person residing in a given state is not necessarily domiciled there, and thus is not 16 necessarily a citizen of that state.” Id. Thus, because Defendant failed to allege where 17 Plaintiff is domiciled, this Court cannot assess Plaintiff’s citizenship. 18 The Court is not persuaded by Defendant’s argument that simply pleading 19 Plaintiff’s residency is sufficient to establish her citizenship. ECF 1 ¶ 29 (citing Ervin v. 20 Ballard Marine Constr., Inc., No. 16-CV-02931-WHO, 2016 WL 4239710, at *1 (N.D. 21 Cal. Aug. 11, 2016)). The Ninth Circuit has made it clear that “residency is not equivalent 22 to citizenship.” Ehrman v. Cox Commc’ns, Inc., 932 F.3d 1223, 1227 (9th Cir. 2019). 23 While a person’s residence constitutes “some evidence of domicile,” the Ninth Circuit has 24 explicitly declined to rule on whether a person’s residence can be treated as prima facie 25 evidence of the person’s domicile. Adams v. W. Marine Prods., Inc., 958 F.3d 1216, 1222 26 (9th Cir. 2020); Ehrman, 92 F.3d at 1228. Instead, it directs courts to “consider the entire 27 record to determine whether evidence of residence can properly establish citizenship.” 1 || Defendant has not alleged any other facts beyond Plaintiffs residency, and thus, the Court 2 || cannot determine Plaintiffs citizenship or diversity jurisdiction. Compare Adams, 958 3 || F.3d at 1222 (finding that it could determine citizenship due to facts inferred from the 4 || class’s last known mailing addresses and a sworn declaration going towards the class’s 5 || citizenship), with King v. Great Am. Chicken Corp., Inc., 903 F.3d 875, 879 (9th Cir. 6 || 2018) (finding that alleging the class’s last known addresses was insufficient to determine 7 || domicile without more). 8 The Court finds that Defendant provided sufficient information to establish that the 9 || amount in controversy threshold is satisfied. ECF 1 17-24. 10 In conclusion, Defendant has not established that federal subject matter jurisdiction 11 |] is satisfied because it did not allege or provide sufficient facts to allege Plaintiff's state 12 || citizenship. Accordingly, Defendant must show cause in writing by March 4, 2026, why = 13 || this case should not be remanded back to state court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 14 || Plaintiffs may respond by March 11, 2026. 15 16 IT IS SO ORDERED.

18 || Dated: February 18, 2026 h_<————~_ 19 United States Magistrate Judge 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28