Xu v. Weis

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: June 7, 2022
• Docket: 2:22-cv-00118
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4

5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 9 10 WEI MIN XU, CASE NO. 2:22-cv-00118-TL 11 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE REGARDING 12 v. SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION 13 MATT WEIS; JANE DOE WEIS; and ALLSTATE FIRE AND CASUALTY 14 INSURANCE COMPANY, 15 Defendants. 16

17 This matter comes before the Court sua sponte upon review of the record, including 18 Defendant Allstate Fire and Casualty Insurance Company’s notice of removal on the basis of 19 diversity jurisdiction (Dkt. No. 1) and the Parties’ responses to the Court’s prior Order to Show 20 Cause (Dkt. No. 10). For the reasons below, the Parties are ordered to show cause why this case 21 should not be dismissed or remanded for lack of diversity jurisdiction. 22 23 24 1 I. BACKGROUND 2 This case arises out of an auto insurance claim related to a motor vehicle collision. Dkt. 3 No. 1-1, at 2. Plaintiff Wei Min Xu is a resident of the State of Washington. Id. at 3. Defendants 4 Matt Weis and “Jane Doe” Weis (the “Weis Defendants”) are residents of the State of

5 Washington, while Defendant Allstate is a foreign corporation that conducts business in the State 6 of Washington as an insurance company. Id. Plaintiff filed this case in the King County Superior 7 Court, asserting various claims under Washington law. Id. at 6–8. Allstate removed the case to 8 this Court, asserting diversity jurisdiction on the basis that Mr. Weis1 is fraudulently joined as a 9 party to the case and should be disregarded for the purposes of determining whether diversity 10 jurisdiction exists here. Dkt. No. 1, at 3–4. 11 On April 20, the Court noted that the Weis Defendants appeared to not have been served 12 with process and ordered Plaintiff to show cause why the Weis Defendants should not be 13 dismissed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(m) for failure to serve process. Dkt. No. 10, 14 at 2. Plaintiff responded to the April 20 Order, representing that there have been three attempts to

15 serve Mr. Weis and asking the Court to recognize that service has been effected as to Mr. Weis. 16 Dkt. Nos. 11, 12. Allstate filed a response as well, arguing that Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate 17 adequate service of process on Mr. Weis. Dkt. No. 13, at 2–3. Allstate also again argued that the 18 Weis Defendants are improperly joined in this case. Id. at 1–2. 19 II. DISCUSSION 20 In reviewing the Parties’ responses to the April 20 Order, the Court was reminded that it 21 must first assure itself that it has subject matter jurisdiction over this case, regardless of whether 22 23 1 The citizenship of fictitious defendants, such as “Jane Doe” Weis, is disregarded in assessing removability. 28 24 U.S.C. § 1441(b). 1 a party has moved to remand or otherwise challenge the Court’s jurisdiction. See United 2 Investors Life Ins. Co. v. Waddell & Reed, Inc., 360 F.3d 960, 967 (9th Cir. 2004) (“[A] district 3 court ha[s] a duty to establish subject matter jurisdiction over the removed action sua 4 sponte, whether the parties raised the issue or not.”). Absent subject matter jurisdiction, the Court

5 must remand the case to the King County Superior Court. See 28 U.S.C. § 1447 (“If at any time 6 before final judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the case 7 shall be remanded.”). Defendants bear the burden of showing, by clear and convincing evidence, 8 that fraudulent joinder exists, such that a non-diverse Defendant who would otherwise defeat 9 diversity jurisdiction is disregarded for the purposes of determining diversity jurisdiction. See, 10 e.g., Hamilton Materials, Inc. v. Dow Chem. Corp., 494 F.3d 1203, 1206 (9th Cir. 2007) 11 (defining fraudulent joinder and noting the “clear and convincing evidence” standard); Hunter v. 12 Philip Morris USA, 582 F.3d 1039, 1042 (9th Cir. 2009) (party seeking removal bears the burden 13 of establishing that removal is proper). 14 Here, Allstate bases its removal solely on diversity jurisdiction. Dkt. No. 1, at 2. But both

15 Plaintiff and Defendant Mr. Weis are citizens of Washington (Dkt. No. 1-1, at 3), which 16 ordinarily defeats diversity jurisdiction. See, e.g., Hunter, 582 F.3d at 1043 (citing 28 U.S.C. 17 § 1332(a)) (“[F]ederal district courts have jurisdiction over suits for more than $75,000 where 18 the citizenship of each plaintiff is different from that of each defendant”). Allstate argues, 19 however, that Mr. Weis’s presence may be disregarded for the purposes of establishing diversity 20 jurisdiction because he was fraudulently joined in this case. See Dkt. No. 1, at 3–4. 21 III. CONCLUSION 22 Accordingly, before the Court rules on the adequacy of Plaintiff’s attempted service of 23 process on Mr. Weis or issues a case scheduling order, it is hereby ORDERED:

24 1 Because it is a defendant’s burden to establish the existence of federal jurisdiction, 2 Defendants shall respond within fourteen (14) days of this Order addressing the issue of 3 fraudulent joinder, as set forth in Allstate’s Notice of Removal (see Dkt. No. 1). Plaintiff shall 4 submit a response within fourteen (14) days after Defendants’ initial response. Defendants may

5 reply within seven (7) days after Plaintiff’s response. Any brief submitted by Parties in response 6 to this Order shall not exceed ten (10) pages, and any reply brief shall not exceed six (6) pages. 7 Dated this 7th day of June, 2022. 8 A 9 Tana Lin United States District Judge 10

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24