Vivian Cruz Paulino v. Walmart Inc.

• Court: District Court, C.D. California
• Decided: May 24, 2023
• Docket: 5:23-cv-00796
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL

Case No. ED CV 23-796-DMG (SPx) Date May 24, 2023

Title Vivian Cruz Paulino v. Walmart Inc., et al. Page 1 of 2

Present: The Honorable DOLLY M. GEE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

KANE TIEN NOT REPORTED Deputy Clerk Court Reporter

Attorneys Present for Plaintiff(s) Attorneys Present for Defendant(s) None Present None Present

Proceedings: IN CHAMBERS—ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THIS ACTION SHOULD NOT BE REMANDED FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION

On April 26, 2023, Plaintiff Vivian Cruz Paulino filed an action in San Bernardino County Superior Court asserting claims for negligence and premises liability against Defendants Walmart, Inc. (“Walmart”), Hugo Murillo, Peter Baca, and Todd Hass. Notice of Removal (“NOR”), Ex. A (“Compl.”) [Doc. # 1 at 6]. Walmart removed the action to federal court on May 4, 2023, invoking this Court’s diversity jurisdiction. See NOR ¶ 6 [Doc. # 1].

Walmart asserts that diversity jurisdiction exists because Plaintiff is a citizen of California, Walmart is a citizen of Delaware and Arkansas, and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. NOR ¶¶ 7–9. Yet, Walmart does not address the citizenship of the other Defendants named in the Complaint. Plaintiff alleges that they all reside in California. See Compl. ¶¶ 4–6.

Under 28 U.S.C. section 1441(a), an action may be removed from a state court to a federal district court if the latter would have had original jurisdiction over the action had it been filed in that court. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 1332(a), a district court shall have jurisdiction over a civil action between citizens of different states in which the amount in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs. To establish diversity jurisdiction, there must be “complete diversity between the parties—each defendant must be a citizen of a different state from each plaintiff.” Diaz v. Davis (In re Digimarc Corp. Derivative Litig.), 549 F.3d 1223, 1234 (9th Cir. 2008).

Walmart properly alleges that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, but not that there is complete diversity between the parties.1 Accordingly, the Court ORDERS Walmart to

1 The individual Defendants have not yet been served. See NOR ¶ 3, D’Angelo Decl. ¶ 10 [Doc. # 1-1]. That fact does not permit the Court, however, to disregard them for purposes of determining whether diversity jurisdiction exists. See, e.g., Lopez v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., No. SA CV 21-01492-CJC (DFMx), 2021 WL UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL

Title Vivian Cruz Paulino v. Walmart Inc., et al. Page 2 of 2

show cause why this action should not be remanded to San Bernardino County Superior Court. Walmart’s Response is due by June 1, 2023.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

5122293, at *3 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 3, 2021) (remanding action removed by diverse defendant where non-diverse defendant had not yet been served); see also Phillips & Stevenson, Rutter Group Prac. Guide, Fed’l Civ. Proc. Before Trial, ¶ 2:2341, at 2D-4 (if an action is not removable because the plaintiff and defendant are citizens of the same state, it makes no difference whether the non-diverse defendant has been served). Their presence in this action appears, therefore, to destroy complete diversity.