CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

Case No. 2:23-cv-06530-JLS-SK Date: August 31, 2023 Title: California’s Favorite C-Store, Co. v. Automatic Data Processing, Inc. Present: Honorable JOSEPHINE L. STATON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Gabby Garcia N/A Deputy Clerk Court Reporter

ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR PLAINTIFF: ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR DEFENDANT:

Not Present Not Present

PROCEEDINGS: (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THIS

CASE SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR LACK OF

SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION

Defendant ADP, Inc. removed this action on August 10, 2023, invoking the court’s diversity jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 1332. (See Notice of Removal (“NOR”), Doc 1.)

“Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction.” Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). As the party invoking federal jurisdiction, Defendant has the burden of establishing that this case lies within the Court’s limited jurisdiction. See id.

A federal court has diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 if the parties to the action are citizens of different states and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). In determining the citizenship of a corporation, “a corporation shall be deemed to be a citizen of every State . . . by which it has been incorporated and of the State . . . where it has its principal place of business[.]” Id. § 1332(c)(1). Here, Defendant alleges that Plaintiff, California’s Favorite C-Store Co., is a “corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of California.” (NOR ¶ 5.) While this sufficiently establishes Plaintiff’s state of incorporation, Defendant’s Notice of Removal does not offer any information about Plaintiff’s principal place of business. As a result, Defendant’s assertion of Plaintiff’s citizenship is insufficient to establish diversity jurisdiction.

______________________________________________________________________________

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

Case No. 2:23-cv-06530-JLS-SK Date: August 31, 2023 Title: California’s Favorite C-Store, Co. v. Automatic Data Processing, Inc. Accordingly, Defendant is ORDERED to show cause, in writing (no longer than five (5) pages), within five (5) days of the date of this Order, why the Court should not dismiss this action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Failure to timely respond will result in the immediate dismissal of the case.

Initials of Preparer: gga

______________________________________________________________________________