The opinion
1
2
3
4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7 DANIELLE FISHER, Case No. 25-cv-02515-SK
8 Plaintiff,
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
9 v. REGARDING JURISDICTION
10 DIGITALOCEAN, LLC,
11 Defendant.
12 “[A]ny civil action brought in a State court of which the district courts of the United States
13 have original jurisdiction, may be removed by the defendant . . . to the district court of the United
14 States for the district and division embracing the place where such action is pending.” Franchise
15 Tax Bd. v. Constr. Laborers Vacation Trust, 463 U.S. 1, 7-8 (1983) (citation omitted); see also 28
16 U.S.C. § 1441. However, federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. See, e.g., Kokkonen v.
17 Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). An action originally filed in state court
18 may be removed to federal court only if the district court could have exercised jurisdiction over
19 such action if initially filed there. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a); Caterpillar, Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S.
20 386, 392 (1987).
21 The burden of establishing federal jurisdiction for purposes of removal is on the party
22 seeking removal, and the removal statute is construed strictly against removal jurisdiction. Valdez
23 v. Allstate Ins. Co., 372 F.3d 1115, 1117 (9th Cir. 2004); see also Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d
24 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992). “Federal jurisdiction must be rejected if there is any doubt as to the right
25 of removal in the first instance.” Gaus, 980 F.2d at 566. In order to determine whether the
26 removing party has met its burden, a court may consider the contents of the removal petition and
27 “summary-judgment-type evidence.” Valdez, 372 F.3d at 1117. It is well established that a court
1 notice of removal is filed. See, e.g., Sparta Surgical Corp. v. National Ass’n of Securities Dealers,
2 | Inc., 159 F.3d 1209, 1211 (9th Cir. 1998).
3 Defendant removed this case on the basis of diversity jurisdiction, arguing that Plaintiff
4 || resides in California. (Dkt. No. 1.) In her opposition to Defendant’s motion for a temporary
5 || restraining order, Plaintiff argues that subject matter jurisdiction is lacking because she is actually
6 || domiciled abroad, not in California. (Dkt. No. 201.) The presence of a United States citizen
7 || domiciled abroad defeats diversity jurisdiction. Brady v. Brown, 51 F.3d 810, 815 (9th Cir. 1995)
8 (presence of United States citizen domiciled in Mexico). As the Ninth Circuit explained in Brady,
9 || “[iJ]n order to be a citizen of a State within the meaning of the diversity statute, a natural person
10 || must both be a citizen of the United States and be domiciled within the State.” /d. (quoting
11 Newman-Green, Inc. v. Alfonzo-Larrain, 490 U.S. 826, 828 (1989) (emphasis in original). The
12 Ninth Circuit held that, because the defendant was a United States citizen who was domiciled in
13 Mexico, he was “neither a citizen of a state nor an alien under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(3)” and, thus,
14 || his presence in the lawsuit destroyed complete diversity. /d. (quotation marks omitted).
15 Therefore, the Court HEREBY ORDERS Defendant to show cause why this case should
a 16 || not be remanded to the Superior Court of California for the County of Alameda. Defendant shall
17 || file a response in writing to this Order to Show Cause (“OSC”) by no later than July 24, 2026.
Zz 18 || Plaintiff may file a response by no later than July 31, 2026.
19 IT IS SO ORDERED.
20 || Dated: July 14, 2026 .
21 hathx
SALLIE KIM
22 United States Magistrate Judge
23
24
25
26
27
28