1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9

10 ARTHUR REID STEPHENSON, et al., Case No. 25-cv-07732-NC 11 Plaintiffs, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 12 WHY CASE SHOULD NOT BE v. REMANDED TO STATE 13 COURT FOR LACK OF

JAGUAR LAND ROVER NORTH SUBJECT MATTER

14 AMERICA, LLC, et al., JURISDICTION 15 Defendants. Re: ECF 1 16 17 Defendant Jaguar Land Rover North America (JLRNA) removed this case to this 18 Court from Santa Clara County Superior Court on September 11, 2025. ECF 1. This 19 Order requires JLRNA to “show cause” by filing a written response by September 26, 20 2025, explaining why this case should not be remanded back to state court for lack of 21 subject matter jurisdiction. 22 Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. 23 Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). District courts have subject matter jurisdiction 24 through federal question or diversity jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332. Diversity 25 jurisdiction requires complete diversity of citizenship and an amount in controversy greater 26 than $75,000. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). 27 JLRNA claims that there is diversity of citizenship because Plaintiffs reside in 1 || Defendant Jaguar Land Rover San Jose was not served. ECF 1 §[] 20-22. But the 2 || diversity jurisdiction statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1332, speaks of citizenship, not residency. “The 3 || natural person’s state citizenship is then determined by her state of domicile, not her state 4 of residence. A person’s domicile is her permanent home, where she resides with the 5 || intention to remain or to which she intends to return... A person residing in a given state 6 is not necessarily domiciled there, and thus is not necessarily a citizen of that state.” 7 || Kanter v. Warner-Lambert Co., 265 F.3d 853, 857 (9th Cir. 2001) (citations omitted). 8 Here, JURNA failed to allege where Plaintiffs are domiciled, and therefore this Court 9 || cannot assess whether complete diversity exists. 10 The Court finds that JURNA provided sufficient information to establish that the 11 |} amount in controversy threshold is satisfied. ECF 1 4] 16. 12 In conclusion, JERNA has not established that federal subject matter jurisdiction is 13 || satisfied because it did not provide sufficient facts and sufficiently allege Plaintiffs’ state 14 || citizenship. Accordingly, JURNA must show cause in writing by September 26, 2025, 15 || why this case should not be remanded back to state court for lack of subject matter 16 |} jurisdiction. Plaintiffs may respond by October 3, 2025. 17 IT IS SO ORDERED.

19 || Dated: September 12, 2025

NATHANAEL M. COUSINS

20 United States Magistrate Judge 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28