Semler Scientific, Inc. v. Joshua Robert Daniels

Opinion

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

10 SEMLER SCIENTIFIC, INC., Case No. 25-cv-09128-NC 11 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 12 WHY CASE SHOULD NOT BE v. REMANDED TO STATE 13 COURT FOR LACK OF JOSHUA ROBERT DANIELS, SUBJECT MATTER 14 JURISDICTION Defendant. 15 Re: ECF 1 16 17 Defendant Joshua Robert Daniels removed this case brought by Plaintiff Semler 18 Scientific, Inc. to this Court from Santa Clara County Superior Court. ECF 1. This Order 19 requires Defendant to “show cause” by filing a written response by November 10, 2025, 20 explaining why this case should not be remanded back to state court for lack of subject 21 matter jurisdiction, and allows Plaintiff to respond by November 17, 2025. 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). Defendant argues that the Court has diversity 27 jurisdiction in this case but fails to sufficiently establish complete diversity of citizenship 1 First, Defendant did not sufficiently establish complete diversity. Defendant claims 2 that there is diversity of citizenship because Plaintiff is a “Delaware corporation with its 3 principal place of business” in California and Defendant is a “resident of the United 4 Kingdom.” ECF 1 ¶¶ 10–12. However, the diversity jurisdiction statute, 28 U.S.C. § 5 1332, speaks of citizenship, not residency. “The natural person’s state citizenship is then 6 determined by her state of domicile, not her state of residence. A person’s domicile is her 7 permanent home, where she resides with the intention to remain or to which she intends to 8 return . . . A person residing in a given state is not necessarily domiciled there, and thus is 9 not necessarily a citizen of that state.” Kanter v. Warner-Lambert Co., 265 F.3d 853, 857 10 (9th Cir. 2001) (citations omitted). Thus, because Defendant failed to allege where he is 11 domiciled, this Court cannot assess whether complete diversity exists. 12 Second, Defendant did not sufficiently establish that the amount in controversy in 13 this case exceeds $75,000. Because Plaintiff seeks nonmonetary, declaratory relief, 14 Defendant is correct to focus on the value of the requested fee Plaintiff is obligated to pay 15 Defendant to determine the amount in controversy. See Hunt v. Wash. State Apple Adver. 16 Comm’n, 432 U.S. 333, 347 (1977) (stating that the amount in controversy in seeking 17 declaratory relief “is measured by the value of the object of the litigation”); ECF 1, Ex. A 18 (Compl.) at 5 (seeking “an order declaring and adjudging the extent to which Plaintiff is 19 obligated to pay Defendant the requested ‘fee’ for his counsel’s work in any particular 20 amount”). Defendant is also correct that the notice of removal “may assert the amount in 21 controversy,” and as the removing party, he bears the burden of proving the amount in 22 controversy by a preponderance of evidence. See ECF 1 ¶¶ 14–15; 28 U.S.C. § 23 1446(c)(2); Geographic Expeditions, Inc. v. Est. of Lhotka, 599 F.3d 1102, 1108–67 (9th 24 Cir. 2010). 25 However, the Court finds that Defendant did not meet his burden. The face of 26 Plaintiff’s Complaint does not give rise to the inference that the value of the requested fee 27 exceeds $75,000. See, e.g., Compl. ¶ 17 (only alleging that the fee is “apparently in excess 1 || supporting that he caused Plaintiff to modify its bylaws to be in compliance with Delaware 2 || laws such that this case should be treated similarly to his cited cases. See generally ECF 1. 3 || Thus, Defendant’s argument is speculative, and Defendant did not meet his burden to 4 || establish that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. 5 In conclusion, Defendant has not established that federal subject matter jurisdiction 6 || is satisfied because he did not provide sufficient facts to allege its state citizenship or an 7 || amount in controversy exceeding $75,000. Accordingly, Defendant must show cause in 8 || writing by November 10, 2025, why this case should not be remanded back to state court 9 || for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Plaintiffs may respond by November 17, 2025. 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. 11 12 Dated: October 27, 2025 he ——> _ NATHANAEL M. COUSINS 13 United States Magistrate Judge

A 16

© 17

1g

19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28