Rodriguez v. Macy's, Inc.

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: December 11, 2024
• Docket: 5:24-cv-08798
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

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

10 MANUEL RODRIGUEZ, Case No. 24-cv-08798-NC 11 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 12 WHY CASE SHOULD NOT BE v. REMANDED TO STATE 13 COURT MACY'S, INC., et al., 14 Re: ECF 1 Defendants. 15 16 17 This Court orders Defendant Macy’s Retail Holdings, LLC (erroneously and 18 additionally sued and served as Macy’s Inc. and Macy’s West Stores, Inc.; hereinafter 19 “Macy’s”) to show cause why this case should not be remanded back to state court for lack 20 of subject matter jurisdiction and lack of full consent of co-defendants. 21 I. Federal Question Jurisdiction 22 Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. 23 Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). District courts have subject matter jurisdiction 24 through federal question or diversity jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332. Diversity 25 jurisdiction requires complete diversity of citizenship and an amount in controversy greater 26 than $75,000. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). Here, Macy’s alleges that this Court has diversity 27 jurisdiction. ECF 1 ¶ 1. 1 A. Complete Diversity 2 Macy’s claims that there is diversity of citizenship because Plaintiff resides in 3 California, Defendant Macy’s has its principal place of business in Ohio, and Defendant 4 Eastridge Property Holdings LLC is a Texas limited liability company. ECF 1 ¶¶ 7–9. 5 But “for the purposes of diversity . . . an LLC is a citizen of every state of which its 6 owners/members are citizens.” Johnson v. Columbia Props. Anchorage, LP, 437 F.3d 894, 7 899 (9th Cir. 2006). Macy’s must provide information on the citizenship of Macy’s and 8 Eastridge Property Holdings LLC’s owners/member for this Court to be able to assess 9 whether complete diversity exists. 10 B. Amount in Controversy 11 Macy’s claims that the amount in controversy “foreseeably exceeds $75,000” 12 because “Plaintiff alleges wage loss, loss of use of property, hospital and medical expenses 13 (which to Defendant’s knowledge, currently amount to more than $60,000), general 14 damage, property damage, and loss of earning capacity.” ECF 1 ¶ 10. However, Macy’s 15 provides no basis for this conclusory statement. See Matheson v. Progressive Specialty 16 Ins. Co., 319 F.3d 1089, 1090 (9th Cir. 2003) (“Conclusory allegations as to the amount in 17 controversy are insufficient.”). The state-court complaint was not clear, and Macy’s does 18 not provide any evidence of the basis for this number. See Urbino v. Orkin Servs. of Cal., 19 Inc., 726 F.3d 1118, 1121–22 (9th Cir. 2013) (stating that when a state-court complaint 20 does not clearly plead the minimum amount in controversy, the “removing defendant bears 21 the burden of establishing, by a preponderance of evidence, that the amount in controversy 22 exceeds the jurisdictional threshold”). Macy’s must provide sufficient evidence to show 23 by a preponderance of evidence that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. 24 II. Unanimous Consent of All Defendants 25 Macy’s Notice does not mention whether it has the full consent of its co-defendant, 26 Eastridge Property Holdings LLC. “When a civil action is removed solely under section 27 1441(a), all defendants who have been properly joined and served must join in or consent 1 || defendants to this action have consented to the removal. 2 || I. Conclusion 3 Accordingly, Defendant Macy’s must show cause in writing by December 27, 2024, 4 || why this case should not be remanded back to state court for lack of subject matter 5 || jurisdiction and lack of unanimous consent by all defendants. 6 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 9 Dated: December 11, 2024 hbo ——> _ NATHANAEL M. COUSINS 10 United States Magistrate Judge 11 12

(14

A 16

© 17

1g zZ 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28