1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10

11 SHANEL DICKSON, Case No. 22-cv-01720 NC 12 Plaintiff,

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE:

13 v. REMOVAL

14 TESLA ENERGY OPERATIONS, INC., RE: ECF 1 and others, 15 Defendants. 16 17 Defendants Tesla Energy Operations, Inc. and Tesla Inc. removed this case from 18 Santa Clara County Superior Court on March 17, 2022, on the asserted basis of this 19 Court’s diversity jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1332. ECF 1, Notice of Removal. In the Notice 20 of Removal, Tesla asserted that a third defendant, Kenny Griffin, was a citizen of 21 California. ECF 1 at p. 4. 22 The Notice of Removal did not address 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b)(2). That statute 23 provides that a civil action otherwise removable solely on the basis of diversity jurisdiction 24 “may not be removed if any of the parties in interest properly joined and served as 25 defendants is a citizen of the State in which such action is brought.” 26 Here, this action is brought in California, which is the same state of citizenship as 27 defendant Griffin. The Court lacks information as to whether Griffin was served at the 1 A second issue is whether a defect in removal under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b)(2) is 2 || procedural or jurisdictional. If procedural, it may be waived. E.g., Lively v. Wild Oat 3 || Markets, 456 F.3d 933, 939-40 (9th Cir. 2006). 4 Accordingly, defendants are ordered to address the applicability and enforceability 5 || of 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b)(2) in a brief not to exceed 5 pages, by June 1, 2022. Plaintiff 6 || Dickson may respond by June 8. If removal was improper and the defect 1s jurisdictional, 7 || the Court will remand the case back to Superior Court. The Court needs to be sure that 8 || subject matter jurisdiction is satisfied before it rules on the pending motion to compel 9 || arbitration. 10 1] IT ISSO ORDERED. 12

13 || Dated: May 25, 2022 h-_<————~

NATHANAEL M. COUSINS

x 14 United States Magistrate Judge 15

16 a7

Zz 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28