Next Petroleum LLC v. Ramirez

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: October 8, 2024
• Docket: 5:24-cv-06904
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 SAN JOSE DIVISION 6 7 NEXT PETROLEUM LLC, Case No. 24-cv-06904-BLF

8 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AS TO 9 v. WHY ACTION SHOULD NOT BE REMANDED 10 STEVEN RAMIREZ, et al.,

11 Defendants.

12 13 The Court issues this Order sua sponte to address concerns regarding the apparent lack of 14 subject matter jurisdiction. Plaintiff Next Petroleum LLC (“Plaintiff”) initiated this unlawful 15 detainer action against defendants Steven Ramirez and Titans Auto Detailing LLC (collectively, 16 “Defendants”) in the Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara. ECF 1. Defendant Steven 17 Ramirez (“Ramirez”) removed the action to this Court. Id. Ramirez invokes federal subject matter 18 jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1). Id. The Court ORDERS the parties to show cause why 19 this case should not be remanded to state court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 20 “[A]ny civil action brought in a State court of which the district courts of the United 21 States have original jurisdiction, may be removed by the defendant or the defendants, to the district 22 court of the United States for the district and division embracing the place where such action is 23 pending.” 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). “A defendant may remove an action to federal court based on federal 24 question jurisdiction or diversity jurisdiction.” Hunter v. Phillip Morris USA, 582 F.3d 1039, 1042 25 (9th Cir. 2009) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1441). District courts have diversity jurisdiction over all civil 26 actions between citizens of different states where the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, 27 exclusive of interest and costs. 28 U.S.C. § 1332. 1 circumstances, a party seeking to invoke diversity jurisdiction should be able to allege affirmatively 2 the actual citizenship of the relevant parties.” Kanter v. Warner-Lambert Co., 265 F.3d 853, 857 3 (9th Cir. 2001). A natural person’s state citizenship is determined by her state of domicile. Kanter 4 || v. Warner-Lambert Co., 265 F.3d 853, 857 (9th Cir. 2001). “A person’s domicile is her permanent 5 home, where she resides with the intention to remain or to which she intends to return... □ A person 6 || residing in a given state is not necessarily domiciled there, and thus is not necessarily a citizen of 7 || that state.” Jd. The notice of removal and the attached unlawful detainer complaint in this action fail 8 || to show that Plaintiff and Defendants are citizens of different states. If Ramirez contends that the 9 || Court has diversity jurisdiction over this action, he must properly identify the citizenship of Plaintiff 10 and Defendants. The Court notes that in the Complaint Plaintiff Next Petroleum LLC identifies itself 11 as a California limited liability company (ECF 1 at Page 7) and Defendant Steven Ramirez lists his 12 address as 1025 South Winchester Blvd., San Jose, CA 95128 (ECF 1 at Page 1). Additionally, 5 13 Ramirez must show that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. 14 Accordingly, the Court orders the parties to show cause in writing why this case should not 3 15 be remanded for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The parties SHALL show cause in writing by 16 || October 22, 2024. IT IS SO ORDERED. 18 19 Dated: October 8, 2024

ETH LABSON FREEMAN 21 United States District Judge 22 23 24 25 26 27 28