Maxine K. Collova, et al. v. HV Global Management Corporation

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 9

10 MAXINE K COLLOVA, et al., Case No. 26-cv-04216-NC 11 Plaintiffs, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: v. 13 Re: ECF 1 HV GLOBAL MANAGEMENT 15 Defendant. 16 17 On May 7, 2026, Defendant HV Global Management Corporation removed this 18 case to this Court from Monterey County Superior Court. ECF 1, Notice of Removal. The 19 Notice asserts that federal jurisdiction is satisfied by diversity jurisdiction and that the 20 procedural requirements of removal are all fulfilled. ECF 1. The Court requests additional 21 information from Defendant in support of its removal to federal court. 22 As a starting point, the general statute governing removal, 28 U.S.C. § 1441, is 23 “strictly construe[d] . . . against removal jurisdiction.” Hansen v. Grp. Health Coop., 902 24 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir. 2018) (citations and quotation marks omitted); Gaus v. Miles, 25 Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992). If a district court determines at any time that less 26 than a preponderance of the evidence supports the right of removal, it must remand the 27 action to the state court. See Geographic Expeditions, Inc. v. Estate of Lhotka ex rel. 1 375 F.3d 831, 838 (9th Cir. 2004). The removing defendant bears the burden of 2 overcoming the “strong presumption against removal jurisdiction.” Geographic 3 Expeditions, 599 F.3d at 1107 (citation omitted). 4 One of the procedural requirements of the removal statutes is that the notice of 5 removal “shall be filed within 30 days” after the receipt by the defendant of a copy of the 6 initial pleading, or if the case stated by the initial pleading is not removable, then within 30 7 days after receipt of an amended pleading from which it may “first be ascertained” that the 8 case is or has become removable. 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(2), (3). 9 Here, Defendant removed to this Court pursuant to diversity jurisdiction, which 10 requires complete diversity and an amount in controversy over $75,000. ECF 1 at 2; 28 11 U.S.C. § 1332. Defendant does not address whether the initial pleading was removable. 12 Defendant does assert, however, that (1) the “amount in controversy is not readily apparent 13 from the face of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint,” and (2) “Plaintiffs admitted in their 14 respective responses to Defendant’s Request for Admissions and Request for Statement of 15 Damages that the amount in controversy for their claims exceed Seventy-Five Thousand 16 Dollars ($75,000.00).” ECF 1 at 4, 8; ECF 3 (Reckon Decl.) ¶¶ 5–6, Exs. 3–4. Defendant 17 also cites to the first amended complaint, filed on January 30, 2026, to assert that Plaintiffs 18 are “citizen[s] of the State of Arizona,” and uses Plaintiffs’ discovery responses filed on 19 April 7, 2026, to “confirm their domicile.” ECF 1 at 6. Ultimately, Defendant argues that 20 removal was timely because “it is filed within thirty (30) days of service of Plaintiffs’ 21 Responses to Defendant’s Request for Admissions,” which were served on April 7, 2026. 22 ECF 1 at 4, 7; ECF 3 (Reckon Decl.) ¶¶ 5–6, Exs. 3–4. 23 Defendant is ORDERED to show cause in writing by May 19, 2026, as to why it 24 could not “first be ascertained” that the case was removable when it was served with 25 Plaintiffs’ responses to Defendant’s Request for Statement of Damages on March 24, 26 2026. In other words, explain how the removal was timely. Defendant may also address 27 whether this defect is jurisdictional or procedural. Although the burden is on the removing 1 If removal was improper and procedural defects are not waived, the remedy is 2 || remand back to state court. 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). A remand order may require payment of 3 || just costs and any actual expenses, including attorney fees, incurred as a result of the 4 || removal. 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). 5 7 8 || Dated: May 12, 2026 —> NATHANAEL M. COUSINS 9 United States Magistrate Judge 10 11 12

Zz 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28