Madrigal v. SMG Extol, LLC
- Richard Seeborg
- 3:22-cv-07351
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Madrigal v. SMG Extol, LLC, Judge Seeborg denied Madrigal’s motion to send the wage-and-hour case back to state court, without prejudice.
Cesar Madrigal, SMG Extol, LLC, and Direct Line Global, LLC; the case remains in federal court at this stage.
What happened
Cesar Madrigal filed a wage-and-hour lawsuit in California state court against SMG Extol, LLC, and Direct Line Global, LLC. The defendants moved the case to federal court, asserting that the parties were citizens of different states. Madrigal asked the federal court to send the case back to state court.
The court rejected Madrigal’s argument that the defendants had not adequately supported their claim that he was not a California citizen. The defendants stated that, based on available information, Madrigal was an Iowa citizen and was living there, and the court found that they had met their burden at this stage. The court also said it could consider evidence that might not be admissible at trial when deciding citizenship for this purpose.
In Madrigal v. SMG Extol, LLC, Judge Richard Seeborg denied the motion to remand without prejudice. The court noted that remand could become appropriate if Madrigal provided a declaration or other evidence showing that he was a California citizen.
The detailed version
- Madrigal v. SMG Extol, LLC · No. 3:22-cv-07351
- Richard Seeborg
- Jan. 20, 2023
Background
Cesar Madrigal filed a wage-and-hour action in August 2022 in the Superior Court of California for Alameda County. SMG Extol, LLC, and Direct Line Global, LLC, described in the opinion as California limited liability companies, removed the action to federal court under diversity jurisdiction, a form of federal jurisdiction based on the parties’ citizenship and the amount in dispute. Madrigal moved to remand, meaning to return the case to state court.
Madrigal’s Argument
Madrigal’s primary objection was that the defendants did not adequately support their assertion that he was a citizen of a state other than California. He also argued that the defendants relied on hearsay evidence in supporting their position about his citizenship.
Court’s Analysis
The court stated that defendants bear the burden of showing that removal is proper and that there is a strong presumption against removal jurisdiction. It nevertheless found that the defendants had met their burden at the removal stage. The notice of removal stated, based on information and belief, that Madrigal was a citizen of Iowa and not California. A supporting declaration indicated that Madrigal had previously expressed an intent to relocate to Iowa and was then residing there.
The court concluded that there was no current ambiguity about Madrigal’s citizenship. It also rejected his focus on hearsay, explaining that district courts may consider evidence that would be inadmissible at trial when determining diversity of citizenship.
Disposition
The court denied Madrigal’s motion to remand, without prejudice. It stated that if Madrigal submitted a declaration or other evidence showing that he was a California citizen, remand would be appropriate. The opinion does not state that such evidence was later submitted.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.