Rodriguez v. Macy's, Inc.
- Nathanael Cousins
- 5:24-cv-08798
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Rodriguez v. Macy’s, Judge Cousins ordered Macy’s to explain why the case should not return to state court for jurisdiction and consent problems.
Manuel Rodriguez, Macy’s Retail Holdings, LLC, and Eastridge Property Holdings LLC; the order specifically required Macy’s to provide the written response.
What happened
In Rodriguez v. Macy’s, Inc., Macy’s brought the case from state court to federal court, claiming that the parties were citizens of different states and that more than $75,000 was at stake.
The court questioned whether those requirements were shown. It said Macy’s had not provided enough information about the owners of the limited liability companies, evidence supporting the claimed amount in dispute, or proof that all defendants agreed to the move to federal court.
Judge Nathanael M. Cousins did not remand the case at this stage. Instead, he ordered Macy’s to explain in writing by December 27, 2024, why the case should not be sent back to state court.
The detailed version
- Rodriguez v. Macy's, Inc. · No. 5:24-cv-08798
- Nathanael Cousins
- Dec. 11, 2024
Background
The court issued an order requiring Defendant Macy’s Retail Holdings, LLC—also sued and served as Macy’s Inc. and Macy’s West Stores, Inc.—to show cause, or explain, why the case should not be returned to state court. The order identified two concerns: whether the federal court had subject-matter jurisdiction and whether all defendants consented to removal.
Subject-Matter Jurisdiction
Macy’s alleged diversity jurisdiction, which allows a federal court to hear a case involving citizens of different states when the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. Macy’s stated that Plaintiff Manuel Rodriguez resides in California, Macy’s has its principal place of business in Ohio, and Eastridge Property Holdings LLC is a Texas limited liability company.
The court explained that a limited liability company is a citizen of every state where its owners or members are citizens. It therefore required Macy’s to provide information about the citizenship of the owners or members of Macy’s and Eastridge Property Holdings LLC so the court could determine whether complete diversity existed.
The court also found insufficient support for Macy’s allegation that the amount in controversy foreseeably exceeded $75,000. Macy’s relied on alleged wage loss, loss of use of property, hospital and medical expenses, general damages, property damage, and loss of earning capacity, including more than $60,000 in medical expenses. The court said Macy’s provided no basis or evidence supporting its conclusion. Because the state-court complaint did not clearly identify the amount in controversy, the court required Macy’s to provide sufficient evidence showing, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the amount exceeded $75,000.
Consent to Removal
The court also noted that Macy’s notice did not say whether its co-defendant, Eastridge Property Holdings LLC, consented to removal. The court stated that, when a civil action is removed under the cited removal provision, all properly joined and served defendants must join in or consent to removal.
Order
The court did not decide that the case must be remanded. Instead, it ordered Macy’s to show cause in writing by December 27, 2024, why the case should not be remanded to state court for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and lack of unanimous consent by all defendants. The order was signed by United States Magistrate Judge Nathanael M. Cousins on December 11, 2024.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.