Juan Franco V Spectrum Brands Pet Group Inc
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11 JUAN FRANCO, Case No. 2:25-cv-06383-FLA (PVCx)
12 Plaintiff,
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY
13 v. ACTION SHOULD NOT BE
REMANDED FOR LACK OF
14 SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION
SPECTRUM BRANDS PET GROUP
15
INC., et al.,
16 Defendants.
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1 ORDER
2 Federal courts are presumed to “lack jurisdiction unless the contrary appears
3 affirmatively from the record;” therefore, the party seeking federal jurisdiction bears
4 the burden of establishing it. See DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Cuno, 547 U.S. 332, 342
5 n. 3 (2006). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a), district courts have diversity jurisdiction
6 where each plaintiff’s citizenship is diverse from each defendant’s citizenship and the
7 amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs. Any civil
8 action brought in state court for which district courts have jurisdiction may be
9 removed. 28 U.S.C. § 1441. However, due to the “strong presumption” against
10 removal, “federal jurisdiction must be rejected if there is any doubt as to the right of
11 removal.” Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992).
12 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(1) (“Section 1446”), a notice of removal must
13 be filed within thirty (30) days after a defendant receives the initial pleading or
14 summons. Section 1446 is strictly construed against removal. Gaus v. Miles, Inc.,
15 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992) (“We strictly construe the removal statute against
16 removal jurisdiction.”) (citation omitted). “If a notice of removal is filed after this
17 thirty-day window, it is untimely and remand to state court is therefore appropriate.”
18 Babasa v. LensCrafters, Inc., 498 F.3d 972, 974 (9th Cir. 2007).
19 The court has reviewed the Notice of Removal and is presently unable to
20 conclude this action was removed within thirty (30) days of receipt of the initial
21 pleading or summons, as required under Section 1446.
22 The parties are ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE, in writing only, within
23 fourteen (14) days from the date of this Order, why this action should not be remanded
24 for failure to remove within the thirty (30)-day window required by Section 1446.
25 The parties are encouraged to submit evidence and/or judicially noticeable facts in
26 response to the court’s Order. Responses shall be limited to ten (10) pages in length.
27 The parties should consider this Order to be a two-pronged inquiry into the facial and
28 factual sufficiency of Defendant’s demonstration of jurisdiction. See Leite v. Crane
1 | Co., 749 F.3d 1117, 1122 (9th Cir. 2014).
2 As Defendant is the party asserting federal jurisdiction, Defendant’s failure to
3 || respond timely and adequately to this Order shall result in remand of the action
4 | without further notice.
5
6 IT IS SO ORDERED.
7
8 | Dated: July 23, 2025
9 FERNANDO'L. AENLLE-ROCHA
United States District Judge
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28