1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 THE GREEN ENCHILADA, INC., Case No. 25-cv-03701-HSG

8 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION TO

REMAND

9 v. Re: Dkt. No. 14 10 AMGUARD INSURANCE COMPANY, et al., 11 Defendants. 12 13 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff the Green Enchilada, Inc’s motion to remand. Dkt. 14 No. 14 (“Mot.”). The Court finds this matter appropriate for disposition without oral argument and 15 the matter is deemed submitted. See Civil L.R. 7-1(b). The Court DENIES the motion. 16 I. BACKGROUND 17 Plaintiff is a restaurant that operates in Pacifica, California. See Dkt. No. 1-1 (“Compl.”) 18 at ¶ 4. In February 2023, Plaintiff’s restaurant suffered damage after a fire broke out at a 19 neighboring business. Id. at ¶ 5. Plaintiff alleges that it submitted an insurance claim to 20 Defendants, but they “failed to pay and continue to fail to pay for the losses.” Id. at ¶ 9. Based on 21 this dispute, Plaintiff brings claims for breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of 22 good faith and fair dealing. See id. at 5–8. 23 Defendant AmGUARD removed this action in April 2025 on the basis of diversity 24 jurisdiction, as it is domiciled in Pennsylvania and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. 25 See Dkt. No. 1 at ¶¶ 7–18. As indicated in the notice of removal, Defendant Berkshire Hathaway 26 GUARD (“BH GUARD”) is not a legal entity: it is a tradename used by various companies. See 27 id. at ¶ 10. 1 II. REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE 2 To support its arguments, Plaintiff requests judicial notice of two exhibits. The first is a 3 single page document purporting to reflect a portion of BH GUARD’s website. The second is a 4 termination notice filed by WestGUARD Insurance Company with the California Secretary of 5 State. Defendant does not oppose Plaintiff’s request. 6 Under Federal Rule of Evidence 201(b), a court may take judicial notice of a fact “not 7 subject to reasonable dispute” because it either (1) “is generally known within the trial court's 8 territorial jurisdiction” or (2) “can be accurately and readily determined from sources whose 9 accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.” Fed. R. Evid. 201(b). A court may therefore take 10 judicial notice of court filings and other matters of public record. Reyn’s Pasta Bella LLC v. Visa 11 USA, Inc., 442 F.3d 741, 746 n.6 (9th Cir. 2006). Websites and their contents may also be proper 12 subjects for judicial notice. See Threshold Enterprises Ltd. v. Pressed Juicery, Inc., 445 F. Supp. 13 3d 139, 146 (N.D. Cal. 2020) (collecting cases); Wible v. Aetna Life Ins. Co., 374 F. Supp. 2d 956, 14 965 (C.D. Cal. 2005) (recognizing that “websites and their contents may be proper subjects 15 for judicial notice” where party “supplied the court with hard copies of the actual web pages of 16 which they sought to have the court take judicial notice”). 17 Because Exhibit 2 is a matter of public record and because Plaintiff’s request is unopposed, 18 the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s request as to this exhibit. On the other hand, Plaintiff’s 19 characterization of Exhibit 1 appears, at most, only partially true. The exhibit does not include a 20 URL address, nor any header or logo to indicate that it accurately reflects BH GUARD’s website. 21 Even more problematic, however, is that the bottom half of the exhibit appears to reflect the 22 results of a Google search for “West Guard Insurance Agency,” not any portion of BH GUARD’s 23 website. Because the Court finds that Exhibit 1 cannot be “accurately and readily determined 24 from sources whose accuracy cannot be questioned,” it DENIES Plaintiff’s request for judicial 25 notice as to this Exhibit.1 26 1 Even assuming, arguendo, that Exhibit 1 accurately reflects the Google results for West Guard 27 Insurance Agency, as discussed below, that entity is wholly separate from WestGUARD Insurance 1 III. LEGAL STANDARD 2 A defendant may remove a state court action to federal court on the basis of diversity 3 jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C § 1441; see also Rodriguez v. AT&T Mobility Servs. LLC, 728 F.3d 4 975, 977 (9th Cir. 2013) (“A defendant may remove to federal district court an action first brought 5 in state court when the district court would have original jurisdiction.”). Diversity jurisdiction 6 exists where the matter in controversy exceeds $75,000 and the dispute is between citizens of 7 different states. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). “If a case is improperly removed, the federal court must 8 remand the action because it has no subject-matter jurisdiction to decide the case.” ARCO Envtl. 9 Remediation, L.L.C. v. Dep’t of Health & Envtl. Quality of Mont., 213 F.3d 1108, 1113 (9th Cir. 10 2000). On a motion to remand, federal courts must presume that a cause of action lies beyond its 11 subject matter jurisdiction, Hunter v. Philip Morris USA, 582 F.3d 1039, 1042 (9th Cir. 2009), and 12 must reject federal jurisdiction “if there is any doubt as to the right of removal in the first 13 instance,” Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992). The removing party bears the 14 burden of establishing federal jurisdiction. See id. at 566–67. 15 IV. DISCUSSION 16 Plaintiff argues that the case must be remanded for lack of complete diversity. The crux of 17 Plaintiff’s argument is that WESTGUARD Insurance Company, an affiliate of Defendant BH 18 GUARD, is in fact a company with its principal place of business in California, and therefore there 19 is not complete diversity among the parties. Plaintiff states that Defendant BH GUARD “has a 20 website that states that it is the trade name for WESTGUARD Insurance Company.” Dkt. No. 14 21 at 5. Plaintiff contends that even though WestGUARD Insurance Company is a “terminated 22 company in California” according to the California Secretary of State’s website, it has its principal 23 location in California. Id. Plaintiff argues that removal was therefore inappropriate. Id. at 6. 24 Additionally, Plaintiff argues that remand is appropriate because “AMGUARD cannot meet its 25 burden of diversity” because it is linked to WestGUARD under the BH GUARD trade name. Id. 26 at 8. 27 The Court finds these arguments obviously flawed. Plaintiff’s arguments rest on the 1 same entity. They are not.” The Court therefore finds that West Guard Insurance Agency’s 2 || operations in California are immaterial to its analysis. In any event, as Defendant points out, 3 Plaintiffs claims arise out of its contract with AMGUARD, not WestGUARD. See Dkt. No. 1-1. 4 || And assuming that WestGUARD were somehow implicated in this dispute, the Court finds that 5 Exhibit 2 indicates not only that WestGUARD is incorporated in Pennsylvania, but also that it 6 surrendered the right to transact interstate business in California in 2014. See Dkt. No. 14 at 14. 7 The Court also finds Plaintiff’s reliance on Boghozian v. Jaguar Land Rover North America, LLC 8 misplaced. There, the Court remanded where the defendant had not adequately alleged its 9 member’s citizenship. See Boghozian, 2019 WL 1925491, at * 1 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 29, 2019). Here, 10 || however, Defendant AMGUARD has adequately alleged that its own citizenship and that of its 11 affiliates is in Pennsylvania, and that BH GUARD is a trade name and not a legal entity. See Dkt. 12 || No. 16-1 (“McKeon Decl.”) at 6-9. Additionally, the parties do not dispute that the amount in 13 controversy exceeds $75,000. The Court accordingly finds that remand is plainly unwarranted. 14 || Vv. CONCLUSION 15 The Court DENIES the motion to remand, Dkt. No. 14. The Court further SETS a case a 16 || management conference on November 18, 2025, at 2:00 p.m. The hearing will be held by Public 3 17 Zoom Webinar. All counsel, members of the public, and media may access the webinar 18 information at https://www.cand.uscourts.gov/hsg. All attorneys appearing for the case 19 management conference are required to join at least 15 minutes before the hearing to check in with 20 || the courtroom deputy and test internet, video, and audio capabilities. The parties are 21 further DIRECTED to file a joint case management statement by November 11, 2025. 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. 23 Dated: 10/24/2025

HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.

25 United States District Judge 26 27 28 > Plaintiff did not file a reply brief to Defendant’s opposition, which points out the distinction between the two entities.