Case 2:22-cv-04442-FLA-RAO Document 29 Filed 02/28/23 Page 1 of 5 Page ID #:248

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 PATRICIA RIVERA, et al., Case No. 2:22-cv-04442-FLA (RAOx)

12 Plaintiffs,

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

13 v. MOTION TO REMAND [DKT. 16] 14

CALIFORNIA DROP FORGE, INC.,

15 et al., 16 Defendants.

17

18 19 RULING 20 Before the court is Plaintiff Patricia Rivera’s (“Plaintiff” or “Ms. Rivera”) 21 Motion to Remand (“Motion”). Dkt. 16. Defendants California Drop Forge, Inc. 22 (“CDF”) and HBD Industries, Inc. (“HBD”) (collectively “Defendants”) oppose the 23 Motion. Dkt. 23 (“Opp’n”). Plaintiff filed a Reply. Dkt. 26 (“Reply”). 24 On August 31, 2022, the court found this matter appropriate for resolution 25 without oral argument and vacated the hearing set for September 9, 2022. Dkt. 27; see 26 Fed. R. Civ. P. 78(b); Local Rule 7-15. For the reasons stated herein, the court 27 DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion. 28 / / /

1 Case 2:22-cv-04442-FLA-RAO Document 29 Filed 02/28/23 Page 2 of 5 Page ID #:249

1 BACKGROUND 2 Ms. Rivera, on behalf of herself and the Estate of Francisco Rivera (the 3 “Estate,” and collectively “Plaintiffs”), filed this survival action in Los Angeles 4 Superior Court (“LASC”) on June 2, 2022, asserting claims for discrimination based 5 on disability, failure to accommodate disability, failure to engage in the interactive 6 process, failure to prevent discrimination, retaliation, wrongful termination in 7 violation of public policy, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. See Dkt. 6 8 at 5, Ex. A (“Compl.”). According to the Complaint, Francisco Rivera (“Mr. Rivera”) 9 worked at CDF, a subsidiary of HBD, beginning in 1997. Compl. ¶ 10. On December 10 26, 2019, Mr. Rivera commenced disability leave due to diabetes. Id. ¶ 12. On June 11 4, 2020, HBD terminated Mr. Rivera’s employment, stating that he had “exhausted all 12 protected leave.” Id. ¶ 15. 13 On June 29, 2022, Defendants filed a notice of removal, invoking this court’s 14 diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332. See generally Dkt. 1 (“NOR”). 15 Plaintiff now moves to remand the action to LASC. See generally Mot. 16 DISCUSSION 17 I. Legal Standard 18 A defendant may remove an action from state court to federal court if the 19 plaintiff could have originally filed the action in federal court. See 28 U.S.C. 20 § 1441(a). Under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (“Section 1332”), a district court has original 21 jurisdiction over a civil action where (1) the amount in controversy exceeds the sum or 22 value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and (2) the dispute is between 23 “citizens of different States.” For purposes of diversity jurisdiction, “a corporation 24 [is] deemed to be a citizen of any State by which it has been incorporated and the 25 State where it has its principal place of business.” Hertz Corp. v. Friend, 559 U.S. 77, 26 80 (2010) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1)) (italics omitted). A corporation’s “principal 27 place of business” is “the place where the corporation’s high level officers direct, 28

2 Case 2:22-cv-04442-FLA-RAO Document 29 Filed 02/28/23 Page 3 of 5 Page ID #:250

1 control, and coordinate the corporation’s activities,” and is also referred to as the 2 corporation’s “nerve center.” Hertz, 559 U.S. at 80-81. 3 “Removal statutes are to be ‘strictly construed’ against removal jurisdiction.” 4 Nevada v. Bank of Am. Corp., 672 F.3d 661, 667 (9th Cir. 2012). “If at any time 5 before final judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, 6 the case shall be remanded.” 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). 7 When an action is removed on the basis of diversity, there must be diversity “as 8 of the time the complaint is filed and removal is effected.” Strotek Corp. v. Air 9 Transp. Ass’n of Am., 300 F.3d 1129, 1131 (9th Cir. 2002). The removing party need 10 only include a “short and plain statement” setting forth the grounds for removal. 28 11 U.S.C. § 1446(a); Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co. v. Owens, 574 U.S. 81, 83, 89 12 (2014). However, “[t]he burden of persuasion for establishing diversity jurisdiction 13 … remains on the party asserting it,” and “[w]hen challenged on allegations of 14 jurisdictional facts, the parties must support their allegations by competent proof.” 15 Hertz, 559 U.S. at 96-97. 16 II. Analysis 17 Here, Plaintiff contends Defendants have failed to establish complete diversity 18 of citizenship exists between the parties. Specifically, Plaintiff asserts removal on the 19 basis of diversity jurisdiction is improper because CDF’s principal place of business 20 was in Los Angeles, California. Dkt. 16-1 (“Mot. Br.”) at 7. As Plaintiff does not 21 dispute that the amount in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive 22 of interest and costs, the court will address only the parties’ arguments regarding 23 complete diversity. 24 In support of her argument, Plaintiff argues most of CDF’s employees and 25 managers worked at Defendants’ Los Angeles, California location, which included the 26 Plant Manager, General Manager, Human Resources Manager, Engineering Manager, 27 Quality Managers, and Production Manager. Id. at 9. In addition, Plaintiff argues 28 Defendants’ business and manufacturing operations took place in California, and that

3 Case 2:22-cv-04442-FLA-RAO Document 29 Filed 02/28/23 Page 4 of 5 Page ID #:251

1 Directors from Ohio would occasionally visit CDF’s Los Angeles location. Id. 2 Defendants argue CDF’s principal place of business was located in Dublin, Ohio, 3 where its CEO, Vice President & CFO, Secretary, and Treasurer had been based since 4 2003. Opp’n at 2. For the following reasons, the court agrees with Defendants that 5 CDF’s principal place of business is in Dublin, Ohio. 6 First, CDF’s CEO, Vice-President & CFO, Secretary, and Treasurer all worked 7 from its Dublin, Ohio location. Dkt. 5, Declaration of Emily Ritchey (“Ritchey 8 Decl.”) ¶ 4. These high-level employees “directed, controlled and coordinated 9 [CDF’s] prominent activities and decisions from the State of Ohio.” Id. Although 10 Plaintiff contends CDF’s employees and senior managers were based at CDF’s Los 11 Angeles, California location, Reply at 5-6, there is nothing to support a finding that 12 any high-level officers who directed or controlled CDF were based in California. To 13 the contrary, the evidence demonstrates CDF’s high-level officers were based in 14 Dublin, Ohio. See Ritchey Decl. ¶ 4. Further, CDF’s Initial Filing and Statement of 15 Information filed with California Secretary of State list CDF’s Principal Executive 16 Office as located in Dublin, Ohio.1 See Rivera Decl. at 5-7, Ex. A; 9-14, Ex B. Thus, 17 the court finds CDF has met its burden to demonstrate its nerve center was in Dublin, 18 Ohio. See Hertz, 559 U.S. at 80-81. 19 20

21 1 Plaintiff asserts Defendants have taken inconsistent positions regarding CDF’s status 22 as an active corporation in California. Reply at 9-11. At the time of Removal, 23 Defendants relied on the Declaration of Emily Ritchey, which stated CDF ceased all manufacturing operations and exited its only facility on March 17, 2022. Ritchey 24 Decl. ¶ 4. In support of their Opposition, Defendants filed the Declaration of Alan M. 25 Rivera, which states “[a]s of August 19, 2022, [CDF] was listed as an active corporation in good standing on the California Secretary of State’s Business Search 26 website.” Dkt. 24, Declaration of Alan M. Rivera (“Rivera Decl.”) ¶ 2. Because the 27 court finds that CDF’s principal place of business was in Dublin, Ohio at all relevant times, the court does not address Plaintiff’s arguments regarding the cessation of 28 CDF’s California operations and the citizenship of an inactive corporation.

4 ase 2:22-cv-04442-FLA-RAO Document 29 Filed 02/28/23 Page5of5 Page ID#:252

I Accordingly, Defendants have demonstrated that CDF is a citizen of Delaware 2 || where it is incorporated and Ohio where it had its principal place of business. 3 | Plaintiffs assert they are citizens of California. Compl. J 1. Plaintiff does not dispute 4 | HBD isa diverse party. Opp’n at 1. The court, therefore, is satisfied Defendants have 5 || shown complete diversity of citizenship exists.” 6 CONCLUSION 7 The court finds Defendants have shown by a preponderance of the evidence that 8 | the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, and that the parties are of diverse 9 | citizenship. Jurisdiction is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. For the foregoing reasons, 10 | the court DENIES Plaintiff's Motion to Remand (Dkt. 16). 11 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. 13 14 | Dated: February 28, 2023 15 S ‘6 FERNANDO ZL. AENLLE-ROCHA 17 United States District Judge 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 | 2 Plaintiff requests the court award the attorney’s fees she incurred in connection with 95 | this Motion, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447 (“Section 1447”). Mot. 13-14; Reply 11- 12. Absent unusual circumstances, attorney’s fees may only be awarded under 26 | Section 1447 (c) “where the removing party lacked an objectively reasonable basis for 27 || seeking removal.” Martin v. Franklin Cap. Corp., 546 U.S. 132, 141 (2005). Having found Defendants’ removal was proper, Plaintiff's request for attorney’s fees is 28 | DENIED.