Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
N.D. Cal.Procedural orderFiled Aug. 5, 2024

Craft v. Longs Drug Stores California, L.L.C.

Judge
Jacquelyn Corley
Docket
3:24-cv-04596
Court
U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
Pages
2
Civil ProcedureTort
In one sentence

In Craft v. Longs Drug Stores, Judge Corley ordered Longs to provide Bay Hill’s members’ citizenship to address possible diversity jurisdiction.

Who this affects

Cynthia Craft, Longs Drug Stores California L.L.C., and FW Ca-Bay Hill Shopping Center LLC; Longs must provide additional information about Bay Hill’s members’ citizenship.

What happened

Craft v. Longs Drug Stores California, L.L.C. concerns Cynthia Craft’s claims arising from a November 2023 trip and fall. Longs removed the case to federal court, asserting diversity jurisdiction.

The court found that Longs’s removal papers did not state the citizenship of FW Ca-Bay Hill Shopping Center LLC’s members. That information was needed to determine whether the court has federal subject-matter jurisdiction.

Judge Jacquelyn Corley ordered Longs to file a supplemental statement identifying each Bay Hill member’s citizenship by August 12, 2024. The order did not decide the underlying trip-and-fall claims.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Craft v. Longs Drug Stores California, L.L.C. · No. 3:24-cv-04596
Judge
Jacquelyn Corley
Date
Aug. 5, 2024

Background

Cynthia Craft sued Longs Drug Stores California L.L.C. and FW Ca-Bay Hill Shopping Center LLC over claims arising from a trip and fall that occurred on or about November 26, 2023. Longs removed the action to federal court, alleging that Craft and Longs were citizens of different states and relying on diversity jurisdiction.

Jurisdictional issue

The court explained that federal courts have limited jurisdiction and that the party asserting federal jurisdiction must establish it. For a case removed on the basis of diversity jurisdiction, federal law also bars removal when a properly joined and served defendant is a citizen of the state where the action was filed. Longs’s notice of removal did not allege the citizenship of Bay Hill’s members, so it did not establish that the court had diversity jurisdiction.

Order

The court ordered Longs to make a supplemental filing setting forth the citizenship of each member of Bay Hill by August 12, 2024. The order was an order to show cause concerning diversity jurisdiction and did not resolve the parties’ underlying claims.

Disposition

The court ordered the supplemental filing. The opinion does not state a final ruling on whether diversity jurisdiction exists or on the merits of Craft’s claims.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.