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

10 OYUKY MARICELA VALTIERRA-LULE, Case No. 25-cv-08790-NC 11 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 12 WHY CASE SHOULD NOT BE v. REMANDED TO STATE 13 COURT FOR LACK OF

TARGET CORPORATION, SUBJECT MATTER

14 JURISDICTION Defendant. 15 Re: ECF 1 16 17 Defendant Target Corporation removed this case brought by Plaintiff Oyuky 18 Maricela Valtierra-Lule to this Court from Santa Clara County Superior Court on October 19 14, 2025. ECF 1. This Order requires Target to “show cause” by filing a written response 20 by October 29, 2025, explaining why this case should not be remanded back to state court 21 for lack of 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). Target argues that the Court has diversity jurisdiction 27 in this case. ECF 1. 1 Target claims that there is a diversity of citizenship because Plaintiff Valtierra-Lule 2 || “is □ citizen of the State of California” and Defendant Target “is a corporation incorporated 3 || under the laws of Minnesota.” EC 1 48. However, a corporation is a citizen of “every 4 || State and foreign state by which it has been incorporated and of the State or foreign state 5 || where it has its principal place of business.” 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1) (emphasis added). 6 || Here, Target did not allege its principal place of business, and thus, did not sufficiently 7 || allege its citizenship. Thus, the Court cannot assess whether complete diversity exists. 8 The Court finds that Target provided sufficient information to establish that the 9 || amount in controversy threshold is satisfied. ECF 1 4] 13-15. 10 In conclusion, Target has not established that federal subject matter jurisdiction is 11 satisfied because it did not provide sufficient facts to allege its state citizenship. 3 12 || Accordingly, Target must show cause in writing by October 29, 2025, why this case 13 || should not be remanded back to state court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 14 15 IT IS SO ORDERED.

5 17 Dated: October 15, 2025 h-_———— _

NATHANAEL M. COUSINS

18 United States Magistrate Judge 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28