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

10 TOMAS BLANDINO, et al., Case No. 25-cv-09143-NC 11 Plaintiffs, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 12 ESTABLISHING DIVERSITY v. JURISDICTION 13 LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE Re: ECF 1 14 COMPANY, 15 Defendant. 16 17 On October 23, 2025, Defendant Liberty Mutual Insurance Company filed a notice 18 of removal for an action brought by Plaintiffs Tomas and Auxiliadora Blandino in state 19 court. ECF 1. The Court issues this Order because the notice of removal fails to plausibly 20 allege diversity jurisdiction. 21 “Federal courts have an independent obligation” to assess subject matter 22 jurisdiction. Henderson ex rel. Henderson v. Shinseki,

, 434 (2011). Because 23 “[f]ederal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction,” they must “presume[]” that a case falls 24 outside of this limited jurisdiction, “and the burden of establishing the contrary rests upon 25 the party asserting jurisdiction.” Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am.,

, 26 377 (1994). 27 A defendant may remove a case from state court if the federal court would have had

(a), (b). A notice of removal must contain a short and plain statement of 2 the grounds for removal and basis for federal jurisdiction.

(a). Diversity 3 jurisdiction requires that parties are citizens of different states and the amount in 4 controversy exceeds $75,000.

(a). 5 Defendant’s conclusory allegations that diversity of citizenship and the amount in 6 controversy are satisfied are insufficient. First, as to diversity, a natural person is a citizen 7 of a given state if they are a citizen of the United States and domiciled within that state. 8 Kanter v. Warner-Lambert Co.,

(9th Cir. 2001). “A person’s domicile 9 is her permanent home, where she resides with the intention to remain or to which she 10 intends to return.”

The notice of removal states only that “Plaintiffs are citizens of 11 California.” ECF 1 ¶ 6. And Plaintiffs’ complaint alleges only that they “were and are 12 currently the owners of certain real property, a residential dwelling” in California. ECF 1 13 at 14. The complaint does not allege that Plaintiffs reside at this dwelling nor any other 14 information that would indicate their place of domicile or citizenship. Without any 15 additional allegations in the complaint or explanation by Defendant in the notice of 16 removal, Defendant falls short of meeting its burden to plausibly allege complete diversity 17 of citizenship. Kanter, 265 F.3d at 857–58. 18 Second, a notice of removal must include “a plausible allegation that the amount in 19 controversy exceeds the jurisdictional threshold.” Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co., 20 LLC v. Owens,

, 89 (2014). Defendant’s notice of removal does not meet this 21 bar. The amount in controversy is typically determined first from the face of the 22 pleadings. Rosenwald v. Kimberly-Clark Corp.,

, 1176 (9th Cir. 2025). 23 Where a plaintiff’s complaint does not state an amount in controversy, a removing 24 defendant may rely on “a chain of reasoning that includes assumptions” to allege the 25 amount in controversy.

(citations omitted). Here, the notice of removal notes that 26 Plaintiffs’ complaint seeks “$45,686.62 in repair and mitigation costs,” along with 27 damages for emotional distress, loss of full use and enjoyment of their property, 1 || Defendant claims “it is apparent that the amount in controversy is greater than $75,000, 2 || exclusive of interest and costs.” ECF 1 411. Defendant provides no reasoning in the form 3 || of factual or legal support for their implied assumption that the categories of damages 4 || Plaintiffs seek beyond the $45,686.62 would plausibly amount to at least $30,000, give or 5 || take. Defendant therefore does not meet its burden. 6 Defendant is therefore ordered to show cause in writing or file an amended notice of 7 || removal by November 10, 2025, plausibly alleging diversity jurisdiction such that the 8 || Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action. Plaintiffs may file a response by 9 || November 17, 2025, if they so choose. Failure to establish subject matter jurisdiction will 10 || result in remand of this action to state court. 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. 12 bbe <——~ = 13 |] Dated: October 27, 2025 □ NATHANAEL M. COUSINS «14 United States Magistrate Judge

15

A 16

o 17

1g

19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28