Tolosa v. Kensington Redwood City LLC

CourtDistrict Court, N.D. California
DecidedSeptember 21, 2021
Docket3:21-cv-05564
StatusUnknown

This text of Tolosa v. Kensington Redwood City LLC (Tolosa v. Kensington Redwood City LLC) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, N.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Tolosa v. Kensington Redwood City LLC, (N.D. Cal. 2021).

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 EMILY TOLOSA, Case No. 21-cv-05564-MMC

9 Plaintiff, ORDER AFFORDING PARTIES LEAVE TO FILE SUPPLEMENTAL 10 v. BRIEFS; CONTINUING HEARING ON DEFENDANT KSL'S MOTION TO 11 KENSINGTON REDWOOD CITY LLC, REMAND; CONTINUING CASE et al., MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE 12 Defendants.

13 14 Before the Court is plaintiff Emily Tolosa's ("Tolosa") "Motion to Remand Action to 15 State Court," filed August 19, 2021. Defendant Kensington Senior Living, LLC ("KSL") 16 has filed opposition, to which Tolosa has replied. Having read and considered the papers 17 filed in support of and in opposition to the motion, the Court finds it appropriate to afford 18 the parties leave to address a jurisdictional issue not addressed in the parties' respective 19 filings, specifically, whether diversity of citizenship exists. 20 In the above-titled action, Tolosa asserts state law claims arising from her 21 employment by defendants KSL and Kensington Redwood City LLC ("KRC") at a "senior 22 care facilit[y]" in San Mateo, California. (See Compl. ¶¶ 3-4.) Tolosa seeks to proceed 23 on her own behalf and on behalf of a putative class. 24 In its Notice of Removal, KSL asserts jurisdiction exists over Tolosa's claims under 25 the Class Action Fairness Act ("CAFA"). Under CAFA, a district court has jurisdiction 26 over a class action where the amount in controversy exceeds $5,000,000 and the parties 27 are minimally diverse. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2). Tolosa, in her motion to remand, has 1 not addressed KSL's showing as to diversity of citizenship, such showing, as set forth 2 below, appears deficient in two respects. See Herklotz v. Parkinson, 848 F.3d 894, 897 3 (9th Cir. 2017) (holding, "even if parties do not dispute jurisdiction," courts have 4 "independent obligation to assess" jurisdiction). 5 First, KSL has made no showing as to KRC's citizenship. Although KRC 6 apparently had not been served at the time of removal (see Notice of Removal ¶¶ 6, 9), 7 and Tolosa has not, subsequent to the removal, filed proof of service on KRC, "the 8 existence of diversity is determined from the fact of citizenship of the parties named and 9 not from the fact of service." See Clarence E. Morris, Inc. v. Vitek, 412 F.2d 1174, 1176 10 (9th Cir. 1969). Second, KSL, although stating it is "organized" under "the laws of the 11 State of Virginia" (see Notice of Removal ¶ 22), has not indicated "the State where it has 12 its principal place of business," see 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(10) (setting forth, for purposes of 13 CAFA, test for determining citizenship of "unincorporated association"); Ferrell v. Express 14 Check Advance of SC LLC, 591 F.3d 698, 699-700 (4th Cir. 2010) (holding LLC is 15 "unincorporated association" for purposes of CAFA), and, consequently, KSL has not 16 established diversity under CAFA, see 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2)(a); see also Kanter v. 17 Warner-Lambert Co., 265 F.3d 853, 857-58 (9th Cir. 2001) (holding removing defendants' 18 "failure to specify" one party's citizenship is "fatal" to "assertion of diversity jurisdiction"). 19 Accordingly, the Court hereby affords the parties leave to file supplemental 20 briefing, solely for purposes of addressing the question of diversity of citizenship: 21 1. No later than October 1, 2021, KSL shall file any supplemental brief, not to 22 exceed five pages in length, exclusive of exhibits. 23 2. No later than October 15, 2021, Tolosa shall file any supplemental responsive 24 brief, not to exceed five pages in length, exclusive of exhibits. 25 3. The hearing on Tolosa's motion to remand is hereby CONTINUED to 26 November 5, 2021, at 9:00 a.m. 27 4. In light of the above, the Case Management Conference is hereby 1 Management Statement shall be filed no later than December 3, 2021. 2 IT IS SO ORDERED. 3 4 || Dated: September 21, 2021 ; . MAKXINE M. CHESNEY 5 Uniféd States District Judge 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Ferrell v. Express Check Advance of SC LLC
591 F.3d 698 (Fourth Circuit, 2010)
Charles Von Bernuth v. John Herklotz
848 F.3d 894 (Ninth Circuit, 2017)
Clarence E. Morris, Inc. v. Vitek
412 F.2d 1174 (Ninth Circuit, 1969)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Tolosa v. Kensington Redwood City LLC, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tolosa-v-kensington-redwood-city-llc-cand-2021.