govinfo:USCOURTS-cand-3_26-cv-02593-1

1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
United States District Court 
Northern District of California 
 
 
 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 
 
MICHAEL PABRUA, 
Plaintiff, 
v. 
 
MV TRANSPORTATION, INC., et al., 
Defendants. 
 

 
 
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 
 
 
 
 In this personal injury action, plaintiff Michael Pabrua sued defendants MV Transportation, 
Inc. and Randolph Joel W iesendanger.1 Dkt. No. 1 -3, Compl. at 1 . On March 25, 2026, MV 
Transportation removed this action from Alameda County Superior Court, on the basis of diversity 
jurisdiction.2 Dkt. No. 1. The action was assigned to Magistrate Judge Kim. 
On May 4, 2026, Judge Kim issued an order granting plaintiff’s motion to subst itute the 
estate for the individual defendant, given that Wiesendanger has died. Dkt. No. 14. Judge Kim set 
a deadline of May 15, 2026, for plaintiff to amend the complaint. Id. at 2. The action was then 
reassigned to the undersigned Judge. Dkt. No. 18. On May 20, 202 6, plaintiff filed the amended 
complaint, against MV Transportation and the Estate of Randolph Joel Weisendanger. Dkt. No. 23. 
It appears that diversity jurisdiction is lacking, in that plaintiff and the decedent are/were 
both residents of California. Plaintiff is a citizen of California. Am. Compl. ¶ 1. MV Transportation 
asserted in its removal papers that Wiesendanger was a citizen of California and that his citizenship 
 
1 The individual defendant ’s name is written elsewhere as Joseph Joel W iesendanger, 
Compl. ¶ 1, and as Randolph Joel Weisendanger, Dkt. No. 23 (Am. Compl.) ¶ 2. 
 
2 MV Transportation’s removal papers state in several places that the case was removed from 
Los Angeles Count y, but the underlying record indicates that the incident took place in W alnut 
Creek, California, and that plaintiff originally filed suit in Alameda County. 

 
2 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
United States District Court 
Northern District of California 
should be ignored for purposes of determining diversity because Wiesendanger lacked the capacity 
to be sued after he died. Dkt. No. 1 at 3–4; McIntyre Decl. ¶ 12 & Ex. F. The Amended Complaint 
states that “Defendant THE ESTATE OF RANDOLPH JOEL WEISENDANGER is named as the 
decedent’s insured estate for purposes of establishing liability covered by insurance and is not 
alleged to have independent domi cile or citizenship for diversity purposes. ” Am. Compl. ¶ 9. 
However, the federal diversity statute provides that “the legal repre sentative of the estate of a 
decedent shall be deemed to be a citizen only o f the same S tate as the decedent . . . . ” 28 U.S.C. 
§ 1332(c)(2). 
“[T]he district court ha [s] a d uty to establish subject matter ju risdiction over th e removed 
action sua sponte, whether the parties raise [] the issue or not .” United Investors L ife Ins. Co. v. 
Waddell & Reed Inc., 360 F.3d 960, 967 (9th Cir. 2004) (citing Feidt v. Owens Corning Fiberglas 
Corp., 153 F.3d 124, 128 (3d Cir. 1998)). “The court may—indeed must—remand an action sua 
sponte if it determines that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction.” H.O.D. Props., LLC v. Sarkisyan , 
No. CV 13-05624 MMM VBKX, 2013 WL 4052469, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 12, 2013) (citing Kelton 
Arms Condominium Owners Ass’n v. Homestead Ins. Co., 346 F.3d 1190, 1192 (9th Cir. 2003); see 
also Thiara v. Kiernan, No. C06-03503 MJJ, 2006 WL 3065568, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 25, 2006) 
(“Because the Court strictly construes the removal statute against removal, if there is any doubt as 
to the existence of federal jurisdiction, the Court should remand the matter to state court .”) (citing 
Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992)). 
Accordingly, the Court hereby ORDERS THE PARTIES TO SHOW CAUSE as to why 
this case should not be reman ded to Alameda County Superior Court for lack of subject matter 
(diversity) jurisdiction. The parties shall show cause in writing by filing a statement, limited to no 
more than five pages each, by June 1, 2026. 
 
IT IS SO ORDERED. 
Dated: 
______________________________________ 
SUSAN ILLSTON 
United States District Judge 
May 21, 2026

Passage view · GavelSight