1 J S - 6

2

3

4

5

6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8 Case No.: 5:24-cv-02509-MRA-SHK 9 JOHN ROE DR 63,

10 Plaintiff/s, O RDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 11 v. MOTION TO REMAND [ECF 8] AND 12 STAYING ACTION PENDING FINAL SETTLEMENT AND FILING OF 13 DOE 1, et al., DISMISSAL, REMOVING CASE 14 Defendant/s. FROM ACTIVE CASELOAD

15

16

17 18 The Parties in the above-entitled case have advised the Court that they are 19 20 finalizing the terms of a global settlement (Dkt. 39, Stipulation to Stay Case pending 21 Settlement) and therefore seek an order staying all proceedings in the case. There is a 22 23 pending Motion to Remand filed by Plaintiff on December 19, 2024. ECF 8. 24 Defendants oppose the Motion. ECF 12. The sole issue presented in the Motion is 25 whether the parties are completely diverse for purposes of establishing diversity 26 27 jurisdiction. The amount in controversy is not in dispute. Complete diversity exists 28 1 when “each defendant is a citizen of a different State from each plaintiff.” Owen 2

Equip. & Erection Co. v. Kroger,

(1978). A corporation is deemed 3

4 to be a citizen of the state(s) in which it is incorporated and in which the corporation

5 has its principal place of business.

(c)(1). 6

7 Here, it is undisputed that (1) Plaintiff is a citizen of California; (2) Doe 1 is a

8 Utah corporation with its principal place of business in Utah; and (3) Doe 2 is a 9

10 subsidiary of Doe 1 and therefore diverse from Plaintiff. The Court finds that Plaintiff

11 has not established that Doe 3 is a separate legal entity, but rather another subsidiary 12 of Doe 1. See ECF 1-1 ¶ 23 (The leadership of Doe 1 “oversee[s] the entire Church, 13 14 including every Stake [of which Doe 3 is one] and Ward in California.”); see also Roe 15 JW 142 v. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, No. EDCV 24-2150-KK-SPx, 16 17

, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 20, 2024) (finding, on similar facts, that a 18 defendant Stake was part of the defendant parent church, not an independent entity). 19 Thus, there is complete diversity among the Parties, and the Court has diversity 20 21 jurisdiction over this matter. 22 Having jurisdiction in this matter, the Court hereby orders all proceedings 23 24 stayed and taken off calendar, thereby removing this case from the Court’s active 25 caseload. The parties shall file a Stipulation of Dismissal by their proposed date of 26 27 28 July 28, 2025. If no dismissal is filed, the Court deems the matter dismissed at

3 | that time. 4 The Court retains jurisdiction for 90 days to vacate this order and reopen the

case upon a written showing of good cause that the settlement has not been completed. 7 Any outstanding Orders to Show Cause are discharged. 8 9 10 IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 18, 2025 fats he AC— HON/ MONICA RAMIREZ ALMADANI 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28