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

10 TITA PERALTA, Case No. 25-cv-03659-NC 11 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AS 12 TO DEFENDANT’S v. CITIZENSHIP AND THE 13 AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY CLASSIC RESIDENCE MANAGEMENT 14 LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, Re: Dkt. No. 1 15 Defendant. 16 17 On April 25, 2025, Defendant Classic Residence Management Limited Partnership 18 filed a notice of removal for an action filed by Plaintiff Tita Peralta in state court. ECF 1. 19 A defendant may remove a case from state court if the federal court would have had 20 original subject matter jurisdiction over the matter, including based on diversity. 28

(a), (b). A notice of removal must contain a short and plain statement of 22 the grounds for removal and basis for federal jurisdiction.

(a). Diversity 23 jurisdiction requires that parties are citizens of different states and the amount in 24 controversy exceeds $75,000.

(a). For purposes of diversity jurisdiction, 25 “a corporation is a citizen only of (1) the state where its principal place of business is 26 located, and (2) the state in which it is incorporated.” Johnson v. Columbia Props. 27 Anchorage, LP,

;

(c)(1). In contrast, “a partnership is a 1 Defendant asserts complete diversity exists between the parties. ECF 1 at 3. 2 || However, Defendant, a limited partnership, provides only its state of incorporation and 3 || principal place of business, without any information as to the citizenship of its partners. 4 || ECF 1 at3. As such, the Court cannot determine whether complete diversity exists. 5 || Defendant is therefore ordered to show cause in writing establishing the citizenship of all 6 |] its partners. 7 In addition, Defendant asserts the amount in controversy is met, in part, based on 8 || Plaintiff's demand for lost back and future wages. ECF 1 at 4-5. Defendant proffers that 9 || because it employed Plaintiff until August 2023 and her annual salary was over $120,000, 10 || Plaintiff at a minimum “seeks in excess of her annual compensation at CRM for lost back 11 || and future wages.” ECF | at 5. However, the Court notes that Plaintiff's complaint 3 12 || alleges she was terminated on August 25, 2024, not in August 2023. ECF 1, Ex. A □ 1. 13 |} Defendant is therefore ordered to show cause as to how the amount in controversy is met 14 ||} where Plaintiff is not seeking a full year’s salary of back pay. 15 Defendant must file a response in writing addressing these concerns by May 7, 16 |} 2025. Plaintiff may file a reply should she so choose by May 14, 2025. 17 IT IS SO ORDERED.

19 Dated: April 30, 2025 h-_———— _ 20 United States Magistrate Judge 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28