Stephenson v. Jaguar Land Rover North America, LLC
- Nathanael Cousins
- 5:25-cv-07732
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Stephenson v. Jaguar Land Rover North America, LLC, Magistrate Judge Cousins ordered JLRNA to justify federal jurisdiction or face possible remand.
Jaguar Land Rover North America, LLC must justify the basis for federal jurisdiction; the plaintiffs may respond, and the case could be returned to state court if jurisdiction is not established.
What happened
In Stephenson v. Jaguar Land Rover North America, LLC, Jaguar Land Rover North America removed the case from Santa Clara County Superior Court to federal court. The court questioned whether federal jurisdiction existed because the removal papers described the plaintiffs’ residences, not their state citizenship or domicile.
The court found that the amount in controversy was adequately supported, but said Jaguar Land Rover North America had not provided enough information to determine whether the parties were completely diverse. Complete diversity generally requires the opposing parties to be citizens of different states.
Magistrate Judge Nathanael M. Cousins ordered Jaguar Land Rover North America to file a written response by September 26, 2025, explaining why the case should not be sent back to state court. The plaintiffs may respond by October 3, 2025; the order did not itself remand the case.
The detailed version
- Stephenson v. Jaguar Land Rover North America, LLC · No. 5:25-cv-07732
- Nathanael Cousins
- Sept. 12, 2025
Background
Jaguar Land Rover North America, LLC removed the case from Santa Clara County Superior Court to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on September 11, 2025. The court issued an order requiring the removing defendant to show cause—that is, explain in writing—why the case should not be remanded to state court for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
Jurisdictional issue
Federal district courts have limited jurisdiction. The removal papers relied on diversity jurisdiction, which requires complete diversity of citizenship between the parties and an amount in controversy greater than $75,000. The court found that the papers provided enough information to establish that the amount-in-controversy requirement was satisfied.
The court concluded, however, that the papers did not adequately allege the plaintiffs’ state citizenship. The papers referred to the plaintiffs’ residence, but citizenship for diversity purposes depends on domicile—the person’s permanent home and intended continuing connection—not residence alone. Because Jaguar Land Rover North America did not allege where the plaintiffs were domiciled, the court could not determine whether complete diversity existed.
Order
The court ordered Jaguar Land Rover North America to file a written response by September 26, 2025, explaining why the case should not be remanded to state court for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The plaintiffs may respond by October 3, 2025. The order did not itself remand the case.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.