1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9 FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10 Case No. 5:23-cv-01678-SSS-SHKx 11 JUANITA CHAVIRA,

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

12 Plaintiff, MOTION TO REMAND [DKT. 9] 13 v. 14 15 SAN ANTONIO SHOE, Inc., et al.

16 Defendant. 17 Before the Court is Plaintiff Juanita Chavira’s Motion to Remand Case to 18 San Bernardino Superior Court (the “Motion”) filed on September 18, 2023. 19 [Dkt. 9]. On October 13, 2023, Defendant San Antonio Shoe, Inc. (“SAS”) 20 filed its opposition to Chavira’s Motion. [Dkt. 11]. On October 20, 2023, 21 Chavira filed her reply to SAS’ opposition. [Dkt. 15]. Since Chavira’s reply, 22 SAS has filed several other filings, all of which relate to Chavira’s pending 23 Motion. [Dkt. 16, 17. 18, 19, 20]. This matter is fully briefed and ripe for 24 review. Having reviewed the relevant pleadings, and the law regarding this 25 issue, the Court DENIES Chavira’s Motion in accordance with the opinion 26 below. 27 1 I. BACKGROUND 2 This case arises out of SAS’ alleged failure to “design, construct, 3 maintain, and operate its website” so as to be fully accessible to blind or 4 visually impaired people like Chavira. [Dkt. 1-1 at 3]. Chavira alleged in her 5 state court complaint that while attempting to navigate SAS’ website, she 6 encountered a series of accessibility barriers which violated California’s Unruh 7 Civil Rights Act and the Federal Americans with Disabilities Act. Id. at 15. 8 Chavira served Defendant with the Complaint on July 19, 2023. [Dkt. 1 at 2]. 9 On August 18, 2023, 30 days later, SAS removed the action to this Court.1 10 [Dkt. 1]. 11 On September 18, 2023, Chavira filed her Motion to Remand. [Dkt. 9]. 12 In it, Chavira also sought sanctions for what she argues was a meritless removal. 13 Id. at 8. 14 II. STATEMENT OF LAW 15 Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. Kokkonen v. Guardian 16 Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). Thus, federal courts can only 17 hear cases if “there is a valid basis for federal jurisdiction.” Ayala v. Am. 18 Airlines, Inc., No. 2:23-cv-03571-MEMF-MAR, 2023 WL 6534199, at *1 (C.D. 19 Cal. Oct. 6, 2023) (citing Richardson v. United States, 943 F.2d 1107, 1112 (9th 20 Cir. 1991)). 21 When a plaintiff files their complaint in state court, a defendant may 22 remove the case to federal court if the case could have been brought originally 23 in federal court. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). If a plaintiff contests the removability of 24 an action, the burden is on the removing party to show by a preponderance of 25 the evidence that the requirements for removal were met. See Dart Cherokee 26

27 1 Because SAS removed the action within 30 days of being served with the 1 Basin Operating Co., LLC v. Owens, 574 U.S. 81, 82 (2014); Emrich v. Touche 2 Ross & Co., 846 F.2d 1190, 1195 (9th Cir. 1988). “Under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, a 3 district court has original jurisdiction over a civil action where (1) the amount in 4 controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and 5 costs, and (2) the dispute is between ‘citizens of different States.’” Jimenez v. 6 General Motors, LLC, No. 2:23-cv-06991 WLH (JPRx), 2023 WL 6795274, at 7 *2 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 13, 2023). 8 It is well settled that a corporation is a citizen of every state in which it 9 has been incorporated and of the state in which it has its principal place of 10 business. 3123 SMB LLC v. Horn, 880 F.3d 461, 462–63 (9th Cir. 2018); 28 11 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1). A corporation’s principal place of business is the location 12 from which its “officers direct, control, and coordinate the corporation’s 13 activities.” Hertz Corp. v. Friend, 559 U.S. 77, 92–93 (2010). 14 If there is any doubt as to the right to removal, a court must remand the 15 action to state court. See Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992) 16 (stating “[f]ederal jurisdiction must be rejected if there is any doubt as to the 17 right of removal in the first instance”); see also Matheson v. Progressive 18 Specialty Ins. Co., 319 F.3d 1089, 1090 (9th Cir. 2003) (citing Gaus, 980 F.2d 19 at 566)). 20 III. DISCUSSSION 21 Chavira argues remand is proper in this case because there is “no clear 22 complete diversity of citizenship” between the parties. [Dkt. 9 at 4]. In support 23 of this argument, Chavira contends SAS failed to disclose to the Court that (1) it 24 is a registered foreign company in California and (2) that SAS “conducts 25 extensive business, and has a systematic and consistent presence, in the state of 26 27 1 California.” Id. at 6.2 For the reasons stated below, Chavira’s arguments fail. 2 Thus, the Court DENIES Chavira’s Motion. 3 A. SAS Successfully Established Diversity Jurisdiction for Removal 4 As mentioned above, a corporation is a citizen of every state in which it is 5 incorporated and the state in which it has its principal place of business. Hertz, 6 559 U.S. at 92–93. Here, it is undisputed that Chavira is a citizen of California 7 for diversity purposes. [Dkt. 1-1 at 4]; see also Kanter v. Warner-Lambert Co., 8 265 F.3d 853, 857 (9th Cir. 2001) (noting “[a]n individual is a citizen of the 9 state in which he is domiciled” with the intent to remain). As such, diversity 10 jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 exists in this case so long as SAS is a 11 citizen of any state or states other than California. 12 Here, SAS has met its burden in establishing that it is a citizen of Texas 13 for purposes of diversity jurisdiction. First, the Court notes Chavira does not 14 dispute SAS’ assertion that it is incorporated in Texas. [Dkt. 10 at 8–9]. The 15 Court finds the records SAS provided, such as SAS’ certificate of incorporation 16 with the Texas Secretary of State, to be more than sufficient to establish that 17 SAS is incorporated in Texas. [Dkt. 12-1, 12-2, 12-3, 12-4]. Thus, the Court 18 finds SAS is clearly a citizen of Texas based on its incorporation. 19 Second, as to SAS’ principal place of business, the Court also finds SAS 20 has met its burden in establishing SAS’ principal place of business is within 21 Texas. SAS provided the Declaration of Kelly Anderson, General Counsel and 22 Secretary of SAS, in support of its arguments.3 In her declaration, Anderson 23 24 25 2 Chavira also argued in her reply SAS failed to meet its burden, as the removing party, to establish San Antonio, Texas as its principal place of 26 business. [Dkt. 15 at 3–4]. As is discussed below, this argument fails as well. 27 3 Chavira requested the Court strike Anderson’s declaration because allegedly it was not served on her or her counsel. The Court reviewed the docket and finds 1 explicitly states, among other relevant parts, “SAS’s headquarters is located at 2 1717 SAS Drive, , San Antonio, Texas” and, perhaps most importantly, that 3 “SAS’s high-level officers direct, control, and coordinate the operation’s 4 activities” from offices at 1717 SAS Drive or at other offices nearby also in San 5 Antonio. [Dkt. 12 at 4 & 7]. 6 Despite Chavira’s arguments to the contrary, courts in the Ninth Circuit 7 routinely hold such evidentiary offerings sufficient to establish a defendant’s 8 principal place of business. See e.g., McDonald v. Gen. Motors, LLC, 23-cv- 9 01584-CJC (DFMx), 2023 WL 7019171, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 25, 2023) 10 (finding a defendant sufficiently established its principal place of business was 11 in Michigan by submitting a declaration of its counsel stating as such); Deleon 12 v. Gen. Motors, LLC, No. 23-cv-01590-CJC(DFMx), 2023 WL 7019169, at *2 13 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 25, 2023) (holding the same); Gonzales v. Starwood Hotels, No. 14 16-cv-1068-GW (JEMx), 2016 WL 1611576, at *4 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 21, 2016) 15 (collecting cases). Thus, because Anderson’s declaration establishes SAS’ 16 corporate officers make their decisions from San Antonio, Texas, the Court 17 finds SAS established its principal place of business is within Texas.4 18 Because SAS was incorporated in Texas, and its principal place of 19 business is within Texas, SAS is a citizen of Texas only for diversity purposes. 20 As Chavira is a citizen of California, the Court finds there is complete diversity 21 22 Chavira’s counsel should have been served with notice of the declaration via 23 email on that date. [Dkt. 12]. Thus, the Court DECLINES to strike Anderson’s declaration. 24 4 In support of her Motion, Chavira also provides the Court with two LinkedIn 25 profiles that she claims are profiles of officers of SAS. [Dkt. 15 at 14-18]. Setting aside SAS’ evidentiary objections to these profiles, the Court finds these 26 profiles do not negate Anderson’s declaration because the profiles state the 27 alleged officers work at “SAS Properties” and “SAS Shoes” rather than SAS. Id. As such, these profiles, even if accepted as true, do not establish that 1 between Chavira and SAS such that diversity jurisdiction exists over this case.5 2 SAS’ removal action was therefore proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a), and 3 Chavira’s Motion is DENIED. 4 B. Chavira’s Arguments Fail 5 For the sake of completeness, the Court will also address Chavira’s 6 arguments that diversity jurisdiction is not established because of SAS’ failure 7 to disclose its foreign corporation status and its business contacts within 8 California. 9 First, the Court emphasizes the citizenship inquiry under 28 U.S.C. § 10 1332 for a corporation depends on two things: (1) where the corporation was 11 incorporated and (2) from where the officers of said corporation direct, control, 12 and coordinate the corporation’s activities. See Hertz, 559 U.S. at 92–93. It is 13 clear to the Court based on the above that Chavira’s arguments regarding SAS’ 14 “presence” in California do little to address whether SAS is a citizen of 15 California or Texas. [Dkt. 9 at 6]. It is clear that an allegation of a defendant 16 conducting extensive business in a state does not necessarily mean the 17 Defendant is conducting their business from within the state. The first is a 18 statement regarding general activity while the latter is a far more specific 19 statement regarding leadership and direction of the corporation. Thus, the Court 20 finds Chavira’s allegations regarding SAS’ “extensive business and … 21 systematic and consistent presence” in California do not refute or even address 22 SAS’ assertion and evidence that establish its principal place of business is 23 within Texas. 24 25

26 5 Chavira does not challenge the sufficiency of the amount in controversy. 27 [Dkt. 9 & 15]. As such, the Court finds, based on SAS’ Notice of Removal, that the amount in controversy requirement for diversity jurisdiction is met. [Dkt. 1 1 Second, the Court finds Chavira’s reliance on Cooper Tire & Rubber 2 Company v. McCall, 312 G.A. 422 (Ga. 2021)6, and Pennsylvania Fire 3 Insurance Company of Philadelphia v. Gold Issue Mining Milling Company, 4 243 U.S. 93, 37 (1917), fundamentally misunderstands and conflates personal 5 jurisdiction with diversity based subject matter jurisdiction. Whereas diversity 6 jurisdiction is a creature of statute with clearly laid out requirements under 28 7 U.S.C. § 1332, personal jurisdiction is a limitation on a court’s power to render 8 a judgment against a defendant arising out of the requirements of the Fourteenth 9 Amendment. See Burnham v. Sup. Ct., 495 U.S. 604, 609–610 (1990); see also 10 Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operation, S.A. v. Brown, 564 U.S. 915, 918 (2011). 11 As Chavira’s Motion itself makes clear, Cooper Tire and Pennsylvania Fire 12 dealt with the “concept of personal jurisdiction” not diversity jurisdiction. [Dkt. 13 9 at 5]. As such, Chavira’s arguments regarding SAS’ contacts are meritless for 14 purposes of the remand analysis as the analysis is dependent on the successful 15 establishment of diversity jurisdiction in this case, not personal jurisdiction. 16 IV. CONCLUSION 17 In accordance with the opinion above, the Court DENIES Chavira’s 18 Motion to Remand. [Dkt. 9]. Because SAS’ removal was not meritless, the 19 Court also DENIES Chavira’s motion for sanction. [Dkt. 9 at 8]. 20 The Court notes SAS objected to the evidence Chavira proffered in her 21 reply and, because the evidence is irrelevant to the Court’s determination of the 22 Motion, SAS’ objection is DENIED as moot. [Dkt. 17]. The Court also 23 DENIES SAS’ Request for Leave to File a Sur-Reply because the sur-reply is 24

25 6 The Court also finds it important to emphasize that the United States Supreme 26 Court did not issue an opinion in Cooper Tire. Cooper Tire & Rubber Comp. v. 27 McCall, 143 S. Ct 2689 (2023). Rather, it denied certiorari so any statement by Chavira regarding this case is actually made in relation to the Georgia Supreme 1] not necessary. [Dkt. 18]. As the Motion is resolved, the Court hereby □□ STRIKES SAS’ Sur-Reply, SAS’ Supplemental Declaration of Kelly 3 | Anderson, and SAS’ Request for Judicial Notice. [Dkt. 19, 20, 21]. 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7\| DATED: November 27, 2023

SUNSHINE S: SYKES

United States District Judge 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28