# Adams v. Google LLC

> District Court, N.D. California · June 13, 2025

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11071527

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, N.D. California
- **Decided:** June 13, 2025
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11071527

## Opinion text

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
LORENZO ADAMS,
11 Case No. 25-cv-05020 NC
Plaintiff,
12
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE TO
v.
13 DEFENDANT GOOGLE LLC RE:
GOOGLE LLC, REMOVAL
14
Defendant.

15

16
17 On June 13, 2025, defendant Google LLC removed this case to this Court from
18 Santa Clara County Superior Court. Dkt. No. 1. The federal court is a court of limited
19 jurisdiction and the party asserting jurisdiction (here, Google) has the burden of
20 establishing a basis to be in federal court. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511
21 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). The Court may consider the issue of subject matter jurisdiction sua
22 sponte at any time during the proceeding. Valdez v. Allstate Ins. Co., 372 F.3d 1115, 1116
23 (9th Cir. 2004) (federal courts are “obligated to consider sua sponte whether [they] have
24 subject matter jurisdiction”).
25 Here, Google asserts that federal subject matter jurisdiction is established through
26 diversity of citizenship and the amount in controversy exceeding $75,000. Dkt. No. 1,
27 citing 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1). But Google needs to provide additional information to
1 || purposes of diversity of citizenship analysis, an LLC is treated like a limited partnership
2 || rather than a corporation. Johnson v. Columbia Properties Anchorage, LP, 437 F.3d 894,
3 || 899 (9th Cir. 2006). This means that “like a partnership, an LLC is a citizen of every state
4 || of which its owners/members are citizens.” Jd. Here, Google has not provided citizenship
5 || information for each of its owners/members. Google therefore has not established subject
6 || matter jurisdiction.
7 Secondly, if Google is a California citizen as the removal notice attests, removal of
8 || acase through diversity jurisdiction is procedurally improper under the “local defendant
9 || rule” if “any of the parties in interest properly joined and served as defendants is a citizen
10 || of the State in which such action is brought.” 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b)(2). Because this is a
11 || procedural defect, the plaintiff must raise it within 30 days to effectuate a remand. See
12 Lively vy. Wild Oats Mrkts., Inc., 456 F.3d 933, 942 (9th Cir. 2006); see also 28 U.S.C. §
13 1447(c). Consequently, if Adams seeks remand on this ground, he must seek that relief
14 || promptly in compliance with 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).
15 In conclusion, Google must file a response by June 20, 2025, explaining why
16 |} removal was proper and subject matter jurisdiction is satisfied. If Adams wishes to move
5 17 || to remand the case back to Santa Clara County Superior Court for Google’s violation of
5 18 || the local defendant rule, he must do so within 30 days after the filing of the notice of
19 || removal. 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).
20 IT IS SO ORDERED.
21
22 Dated: June 13, 2025 h-_=——— _
23 United States Magistrate Judge
24
25
26
27
28

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11071527. Public record. Not legal advice.