Joni Gruel v. Buffalo Wild Wings, Inc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL Case No. ED CV 21-460-DMG (SHKx) Date March 17, 2021 Title Joni Gruel v. Buffalo Wild Wings, Inc., et al. Page 1 of 2 Present: The Honorable DOLLY M. GEE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE KANE TIEN NOT REPORTED Deputy Clerk Court Reporter Attorneys Present for Plaintiff(s) Attorneys Present for Defendant(s) None Present None Present Proceedings: IN CHAMBERS—ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THIS CASE SHOULD NOT BE REMANDED TO LOS ANGELES COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT On August 6, 2020, Plaintiff Joni Gruel filed a Complaint in Riverside County Superior Court against Defendants Buffalo Wild Wings, Inc. and Inspire Brands, alleging premises liability and negligence. [Doc. # 1-1.] On January 28, 2021, Plaintiff filed an amendment to the Complaint naming Defendant Blazin Wings, Inc. as another Defendant. [Doc. # 1-2.] On March 15, 2021, Blazin Wings filed a Notice of Removal, asserting it first received notice that the amount-in-controversy exceeded $75,000 in a written communication from Plaintiff on February 13, 2021, and that diversity jurisdiction exists under 28 U.S.C. section 1332 . Not. of Removal at ¶¶ 5-6 [Doc. # 1]. The Notice of Removal does not mention whether any other Defendants have been served and their position on removal of the action. Under 28 U.S.C. section 1441 , when removal is based on the Court’s original jurisdiction, “all defendants who have been properly joined and served must join in or consent to the removal of the action.” 28 U.S.C. § 1441 (b)(2)(A). “[A] party seeking to remove a case to federal court has the burden of proving that all the requirements of removal have been met. That burden goes not only to the issue of federal jurisdiction, but also to questions of compliance with statutes governing the exercise of the right of removal.” See Parker v. Brown, 570 F. Supp. 640, 642 (S.D. Ohio 1983); accord Riggs v. Plaid Pantries, Inc., 233 F. Supp. 2d 1260, 1264 (D. Or. 2001). It is not clear whether Buffalo Wild Wings and Inspire Brands have been served, and if they have been, Blazin Wings has not explained why removal is proper even though the other Defendants did not join in the removal notice or otherwise indicate their consent to the removal of this action. Accordingly, because it is not clear that the removal is procedurally proper, Blazin Wings is hereby ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE why this action should not be remanded to Riverside County Superior Court for improper removal. Blazin Wings shall file a response by no later than UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL Case No. ED CV 21-460-DMG (SHKx) Date March 17, 2021 Title Joni Gruel v. Buffalo Wild Wings, Inc., et al. Page 2 of 2 March 25, 2021. Failure to timely file a satisfactory response by this deadline will result in the remand of this action to state court. IT IS SO ORDERED.