1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 OHLA USA, INC., Case No.: 25-cv-1314-RSH-AHG

12 Plaintiff,

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S

13 v. UNOPPOSED MOTION TO

REMAND

14 J D BARLOW CONSTRUCTION, LLC

et al., 15 [ECF No. 17] Defendants. 16 17 18 19 Pending before the Court is a motion to remand filed by plaintiff OHLA USA, Inc. 20 (“OHLA” or “Plaintiff”). The motion is unopposed. As set forth below, the motion is 21 granted. 22 I. DISCUSSION 23 On April 3, 2025, OHLA filed its complaint in the Superior Court of California for 24 the County of San Diego. ECF No. 1-3 at 2. In its complaint, OHLA named two defendants, 25 JD Barlow Construction LLC (“JD Barlow”) and Western National Mutual Insurance 26 Company (“WNMIC”). Id. OHLA asserted state law causes of action for breach of contract 27 and breach of bond obligations. Id. 28 /// 1 On May 22, 2025, WNMIC removed the action to this Court based on diversity of 2 citizenship. ECF No. 1. The same day, WNMIC filed claims in this Court against OHLA 3 and JD Barlow, as well as against individuals James Barlow and Dawn Vernola, invoking 4 this Court’s supplemental jurisdiction. ECF No. 2. 5 On June 10, 2025, OHLA and WNMIC jointly moved to remand the case to Superior 6 Court, on the grounds that JD Barlow is a citizen of California, rendering removal improper 7 under the “forum defendant rule,” 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b)(2). ECF No. 15. That rule provides 8 that a civil action otherwise removable based on diversity jurisdiction “may not be removed 9 if any of the parties in interest properly joined and served as defendants is a citizen of the 10 State in which such action is brought.” 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b)(2); see also Lively v. Wild Oats 11 Mkts., Inc., 456 F.3d 933, 939 (9th Cir. 2006) (stating that the forum defendant rule 12 “confines removal on the basis of diversity jurisdiction to instances where no defendant is 13 a citizen of the forum state”); Spencer v. United States Dist. Court, 393 F.3d 867, 870 (9th 14 Cir. 2004) (“It is thus clear that the presence of a local defendant at the time removal is 15 sought bars removal.”). 16 On June 20, 2025, the Court denied the joint motion, on the grounds that the moving 17 parties had not established that (1) JD Barlow had been served with process, or that (2) JD 18 Barlow was a citizen of California. ECF No. 16. The Court noted that “as JD Barlow is a 19 LLC, its citizenship is not determined by its place of formation or principal place of 20 business, but rather, by the citizenship of each of its members.” Id. at 2 (citing Carolina 21 Cas. Ins. Co. v. Team Equip., Inc., 741 F.3d 1082, 1085 (9th Cir. 2014)). The denial was 22 without prejudice. 23 On July 11, 2025, OHLA filed a noticed motion to remand, providing additional 24 material in response to the Court’s order. ECF No. 17. No party has opposed the motion. 25 Upon review of the materials submitted, the Court concludes that JD Barlow was duly 26 served with process. See ECF No. 17-3 (proof of service filed in Superior Court). As to the 27 citizenship of JD Barlow, OHLA has put forward evidence reflecting that Mr. Barlow and 28 Ms. Vernola, both individuals residing in California, are managers or members of the 1 || limited lability company. See ECF No. 17-5 (statement of information filed with 2 California Secretary of State). WNMIC’s counterclaim similarly alleges that Mr. Barlow 3 |}is a member of JD Barlow and that he resides in California, and that Ms. Vernola is a 4 ||manger of JD Barlow and likewise resides in California. ECF No. 2 {| 3, 4. No party 5 contests these factual assertions or contests that JD Barlow is a citizen of California. The 6 ||Court concludes that the forum defendant rule applies here, that removal was improper, 7 || and that the action should be remanded for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. 8 1447(c).!

CONCLUSION

10 For the foregoing reasons, OHLA’s unopposed motion to remand is GRANTED. 11 action is ordered REMANDED to the California Superior Court, County of San 12 || Diego. The Counterclaim filed by WNMIC is DISMISSED without prejudice for lack of 13 || subject matter jurisdiction. The Clerk of Court is directed to close the file. 14 IT IS SO ORDERED. 15 || Dated: August 7, 2025 C ‘ Z [oe 16 7 Hon. Robert S. Huie United States District Judge 18 19 20 21 22 23 WNMIC’s counterclaim—which WNMIC previously moved to dismiss—only invokes supplemental jurisdiction, and in any case would be insufficient to create removal 25 ||jurisdiction. See Takeda v. Northwestern National Life Insurance Co., 765 F.2d 815, 821 (9th Cir.1985) (“[R]emovability cannot be created by defendant pleading a counterclaim presenting a federal question.’’) (citations omitted); see also United States Fire Ins. Co. v. 27 |\\Icicle Seafoods, Inc., 572 F. Supp. 3d 1047, 1056 (W.D. Wash. 2021) (“[I]t is well- 28 established that supplemental jurisdiction is not an independent basis for federal jurisdiction.”).