Opinion
Case No. 2:13-cv-7602-ODW (MANx)
2013-10-21
ROBERT MAGNET, Plaintiff, v. FRANCK'S LAB, INC., dba FRANCK'S COMPOUNDING LAB, FRANCK'S PHARMACY, INC., FRANCK'S MANAGEMENT, LLC, FRANCK'S HEALTHY LIFESTYLES, LLC, KENT W. SMALL, M.D.; MACULA & RETINA INSTITUTE and DOES 1 through 300, inclusive, Defendants.
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY
THIS COURT SHOULD NOT
REMAND FOR LACK OF SUBJECT
MATTER JURISDICTION
The Court has received the Notice of Removal from Defendants Franck's Lab, Inc., dba Franck's Compounding Lab; Franck's Pharmacy, Inc.; Franck's Healthy Lifestyles, LLC; Paul W. Franck; and Anthony James Campbell ("Defendants"). However, the Court is not convinced that it has subject matter jurisdiction over this action. When a defendant attempts to remove an action from state court, the Court is "obligated to consider sua sponte whether we have subject matter jurisdiction" over the instant claims. Valdez v. Allstate Ins. Co., 372 F.3d 1115, 1116 (9th Cir. 2004).
Defendants cite diversity of citizenship as a basis of subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Defendants' Notice of Removal asserts that Defendants are all citizens of the State of Florida and that "Plaintiff is a resident of the County of Los Angles, State of California." (Notice of Removal ¶ 2.) Nevertheless, for the purposes of complete diversity, a natural person's citizenship is "determined by [his] state of domicile, not [his] state of residence." Kantor v. Warner-Lambert Co., 265 F.3d 853, 857 (9th Cir. 2001). Residency allegations alone are inadequate to establish citizenship on removal in light of the strong presumption against removal jurisdiction. See id. at 857. After carefully examining Defendants' Notice of Removal, it appears that Defendants cite no objective facts beyond a statement of residency to establish Plaintiff Robert Magnet's domicile. Accordingly, the Court hereby ORDERS Defendants to show cause in writing no later than October 31, 2013, why this action should not be remanded for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Defendants must clearly establish diversity of citizenship. Plaintiff Robert Magnet may file a simultaneous brief on this matter, if he so chooses. No oral argument on this matter will be heard unless ordered by the Court.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
________________
OTIS D. WRIGHT, II
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE