Mary A. Kan v. General Motors LLC

• Court: District Court, C.D. California
• Decided: October 24, 2023
• Docket: 5:23-cv-01731
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

____________________________________________________________________________ UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

Case No.: 5:23-cv-01731-JLS-RAO Date: October 24, 2023 Title: Mary A. Kan v. General Motors LLC

Present: HONORABLE JOSEPHINE L. STATON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Gabby Garcia N/A Deputy Clerk Court Reporter

ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR PLAINTIFF: ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR DEFENDANT: Not Present Not Present

PROCEEDINGS: (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO REMAND (Doc. 16)

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to remand to state court. (Mot., Doc. 16.) Defendant opposed, and Plaintiff replied. (Opp., Doc. 25; Reply, Doc. 26.) The Court finds this matter appropriate for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 78(b); C.D. Cal. R. 7-15. Accordingly, the hearing set for November 3, 2023 at 10:30 a.m., is VACATED. For the following reasons, the Court DENIES the Motion.

Plaintiff’s motion to remand contains no substantive argument that this Court lacks diversity jurisdiction; it simply notes that Defendant, as the party that removed, bears the burden of establishing subject-matter jurisdiction. (See Mot., Doc. 16.) Defendant’s opposition, declaration, and exhibits establish that there is both complete diversity between the parties and that diversity jurisdiction’s amount-in-controversy requirement is met. (See Opp., Doc. 25 at 2–7; Purchase Agreement, Doc. 26-2; Kuhn Decl., Doc. 26-3 ¶¶ 4–6; Related-Case 26(f) Report, Doc. 26-4 at 2.)

In its Reply, Defendant raises two arguments for the first time: (1) that Plaintiff “provided no admissible evidence showing the date that Defendant was served with the Complaint”; and (2) that the declaration of a lawyer in Defendant’s general counsel’s office is insufficient to establish Defendant’s citizenship. (Reply, Doc. 26 at 3–5.) As an _____________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case No.: 5:23-cv-01731-JLS-RAO Date: October 24, 2023 Title: Mary A. Kan v. General Motors LLC initial matter, Plaintiff forfeited these arguments. Zamani v. Carnes, 491 F.3d 990, 997 (9th Cir. 2007) (“The district court need not consider arguments raised for the first time in a reply brief.”). In any event, both fail. First, Defendant attached to its notice of removal a proof of service showing that Defendant received Plaintiff’s complaint on August 7, 2023; Defendant did not need to reattach that proof of service when opposing Plaintiff’s amorphous motion. (See State Court Documents, Doc. 1-2 at 15.) Second, “[p]ersonal knowledge can be inferred from an affiant’s position” in a company, and the Court assumes that a lawyer in Defendant’s general counsel’s office is aware of basic corporate-structure facts, including where Defendant’s parent corporation is incorporated and has its principal place of business. Self-Realization Fellowship Church v. Ananda Church of Self-Realization, 206 F.3d 1322, 1330 (9th Cir. 2000).

Initials of Deputy Clerk: gga

_____________________________________________________________________________