Mirage v. Costco Wholesale Corp., No. 2:25-cv-04856-AH (July 31, 2025)

Case details
Full caption
Mirage v. Costco Wholesale Corporation
Country
United States
Jurisdiction
Federal
Decided
July 31, 2025
Disposition
Remanded
Majority
Anne Hwang (J.) (unanimous Court)
Mirage v. Costco Wholesale Corporation, Slip Copy (2025)2025 WL 2201070 © 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.12025 WL 2201070Only the Westlaw citation is currently available.United States District Court, C.D. California.Mitra MIRAGEv.COSTCO WHOLESALECORPORATION et al.Case No. 2:25-cv-04856-AH-(SKx)|Filed July 31, 2025Attorneys and Law FirmsPhilip P. DeLuca, Law Offices of Philip DeLuca, BelmontShore, CA, for Mitra Mirage.Jason Cesar Dineros, Kelly Mahoney Haas, Paul A. Bigley,Freeman Mathis and Gary, LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for CostcoWholesale Corporation et al.Proceedings: (In Chambers) Order Denying Plaintiff'sMotion to Remand (Dkt. No. 12)Anne Hwang, United States District Judge*1 Before the Court is Plaintiff Mitra Mirage's (“Plaintiff”)Motion to Remand. Defendant Costco Wholesale Corporation(“Defendant”) opposes. Opp'n, Dkt. No. 13. The Court deemsthe Motion appropriate for decision without oral argument.Fed. R. Civ. P. 78(b); L.R. 7-15. For the reasons set forthbelow, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's Motion.I. BACKGROUNDOn March 10, 2025, Plaintiff filed a suit against Defendant inthe Los Angeles County Superior Court for premises liabilityand negligence based on a slip and fall incident that tookplace at the Defendant's warehouse located in San Dimas,California. See generally Compl., Dkt. No. 1-1. Plaintiffslipped and fell on a slippery, wet, and sticky substance sheencountered. Id. at 7.On May 29, 2025, Defendant removed this case to federalcourt, asserting diversity jurisdiction. Notice of Removal,Dkt. No. 1. Plaintiff has now filed this Motion to Remand.Mot. to Remand, Dkt. No. 12.II. LEGAL STANDARD“Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction.” Kokkonenv. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). Adefendant may remove a civil action in state court to federalcourt if the federal court has original jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C.§ 1441(a). Federal courts have original jurisdiction wherean action arises under federal law or where each plaintiff'scitizenship is diverse from each defendant's citizenshipand the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, excludinginterest and costs. Id. §§ 1331, 1332(a). The defendantseeking removal of an action to federal court has the burdenof establishing grounds for federal jurisdiction. See Gaus v.Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566–67 (9th Cir. 1992). Whenfederal subject matter jurisdiction is based on diversity ofcitizenship, “complete diversity of citizenship” must existbetween the opposing parties, where “the citizenship of eachplaintiff is diverse from the citizenship of each defendant.”Caterpillar Inc. v. Lewis, 519 U.S. 61, 68 (1996) (cleaned up).A corporation is a citizen of the state in which it isincorporated and the one in which its principal place ofbusiness is located. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c). Its “principal placeof business” is “the place where a corporation's officers direct,control, and coordinate the corporation's activities,” which isknown as its “nerve center.” Hertz Corp. v. Friend, 559 U.S.77, 92–93 (2010) (cleaned up).III. DISCUSSIONHere, the Parties do not dispute the amount in controversy.Rather, Plaintiff purports to dispute the diversity ofcitizenship here.However, Plaintiff admits in the Motion that Defendant is“incorporated in and [has] its principal place of business inWashington[.]” Mot. to Remand at 3. Plaintiff is a Californiaresident. Id. Defendant is headquartered and maintains itsprincipal place of business at 999 Lake Drive, Issaquah,Washington. Ex. 3 at 23, Dkt. No 6.1 Accordingly, Defendantis a citizen of Washington and Plaintiff is a citizen ofCalifornia, leading to a complete diversity of citizenship.*2 Plaintiff attempts to argue that California state courtis better positioned to handle this case because the lawsuitinvolves only California state law claims. Mot. to Remand at4. Plaintiff then attempts to argue that Defendant is a citizen
Mirage v. Costco Wholesale Corporation, Slip Copy (2025)2025 WL 2201070 © 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.2of California because of the “minimum contacts” test usedto determine personal jurisdiction, id. at 4–5, and articulatedin International Shoe. See generally Int'l Shoe Co. v. Stateof Wash., Off. of Unemployment Comp. & Placement, 326U.S. 310 (1945). However, this analysis is used to determinewhether the Court has personal jurisdiction; it is not thestandard used to assess the citizenship of parties for purposesof diversity jurisdiction.Finally, the Court notes that in the Motion and Reply, Plaintiffcites to a case purported to be Martinez v. Ford Motor Co.Mot. to Remand at 3, 5; Reply at 2, Dkt. No. 14. The Courtwas unable to find these cases. To the extent that Plaintiffhas relied on artificial intelligence, Plaintiff has not compliedwith this Court's Standing Order, which requires a partywho uses artificial intelligence to generate any portion of abrief to attach a separate declaration disclosing the use ofartificial intelligence and certifying that the filer has reviewedthe source material and verified the content is accurate andcomplies with the filer's Rule 11 obligations. See StandingOrder at 7, Dkt. No. 11. Plaintiff is admonished that any futurecitations to authority that do not appear to exist will resultin the Court setting an order to show cause re why sanctionsshould not be imposed.The Court finds that it has jurisdiction over this case.2IV. CONCLUSIONFor the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff's Motion to Remand isDENIED.IT IS SO ORDERED.All CitationsSlip Copy, 2025 WL 2201070Footnotes1The Court takes judicial notice of Defendant's Articles of Incorporation pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 201. See,e.g., Magee v. Gen. Motors LLC, 2023 WL 7927745, at *4 n.1 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 15, 2023).2Defendant also filed two objections to Exhibits cited in Plaintiff's Motion. Opp'n at 8. Because the Court does not rely onthe Exhibits in deciding this Motion, the Court declines to rule on these objections.End of Document© 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S.Government Works.
ProvenanceKnow exactly where this document came from.Members see the sourcing behind every authority on DocPost — so you can check the record yourself and cite with confidence.Request access