`
`Gabriel S. Spooner (SBN: 263010)
`gspooner@shb.com
`SHOOK, HARDY & BACON L.L.P.
`Jamboree Center
`5 Park Plaza, Suite 1600
`Irvine, California 92614-2546
`Telephone: 949-475-1500
`Facsimile: 949-475-0016
`Attorneys for Defendants
`ADT LLC, d/b/a PROTECTION ONE (erroneously sued as
`ADT, INC. and PROTECTION 1)
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`Case No.: 5:21-cv-635
`Judge: Hon.
`Ctrm.:
`
`ADT LLC, D/B/A PROTECTION
`ONE’S NOTICE OF REMOVAL
`[Filed concurrently with Notice of
`Interested Parties; Corporate Disclosure
`Statement; Notice of Related Cases;
`and Civil Cover Sheet]
`
`Complaint filed:
`
`January 29, 2021
`
`))
`
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`TEMECULA GOLD AND JEWELRY;
`ALFY SHENOUDA,
`Plaintiffs,
`
`vs.
`ADT, INC., a California corporation;
`PROTECTION 1, a California
`corporation; and DOES 1 through 50,
`Defendants.
`
`TO ALL PARTIES, THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD, AND THE CLERK OF
`THE ABOVE-ENTITLED COURT:
`PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332, 1441, and 1446,
`Defendant ADT LLC, d/b/a Protection One (“ADT”), hereby removes the above-
`entitled case from the Superior Court of California, County of Riverside, to the United
`States District Court, Central District of California, based on diversity of citizenship
`jurisdiction, on the following grounds:
`
`4828-9407-9459
`
`ADT LLC’S NOTICE OF REMOVAL
`
`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
`
`
`
`Case 5:21-cv-00635 Document 1 Filed 04/09/21 Page 2 of 7 Page ID #:2
`
`The removed case is a civil action brought by Plaintiffs Temecula Gold
`1.
`and Jewelry; and Alfy Shenouda (“Plaintiffs”), on or about January 29, 2021, in
`Superior Court of the State of California, County of Riverside, and is entitled
`Temecula Gold and Jewelry; and Alfy Shenouda vs. ADT, Inc.; Protection 1; and
`Does 1 through 50, inclusive, having been assigned Case No. CVRI2100440. ADT
`accepted service of process on March 11, 2021. The Complaint alleges claims for
`Breach of Contract; Unjust Enrichment; and Negligence (See Complaint, Exhibit A.)
`2.
`Defendant ADT removes this action under 28 U.S.C. §§1332(a) and
`1441(b) on the grounds that complete diversity of citizenship exists between Plaintiffs
`and ADT, and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, exclusive of interest and
`costs.
`
`PAPERS FROM THE REMOVED ACTION
`
`As required by 28 U.S.C. § 1446(a), attached are copies of all pleadings
`3.
`and orders in the possession of ADT in the removed case.
`4.
`True and correct copies of the Civil Cover Sheet, Summons, Complaint,
`and Acknowledgements of Service are included in Exhibit A attached hereto.
`Exhibit A constitutes all papers, process, pleadings, and orders served
`5.
`upon and received to date in this matter by ADT.
`COMPLETE DIVERSITY EXISTS BETWEEN THE PARTIES
`Complete diversity of citizenship exists between the parties.
`6.
`Plaintiff Alfy Shenouda is a citizen of Riverside County, California. (See
`7.
`Complaint, ¶3.) State citizenship for diversity purposes requires that the individual be
`domiciled in that state. Kantor v. Wellesley Galleries, Ltd., 704 F.2d 1088, 1090 (9th
`Cir. 1983). A person’s domicile is the place he or she resides with the intent to remain
`or to which he or she intends to return. Kanter v. Warner-Lambert Co., 265 F.3d 853,
`857 (9th Cir. 2001). A party’s place of residence is “prima facie” evidence of
`domicile. Gonzalez v. First NLC Fin. Servs., No. CV 09-4147 AHM, 2009 WL
`2
`
`ADT LLC’S NOTICE OF REMOVAL
`
`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
`
`4828-9407-9459
`
`
`
`Case 5:21-cv-00635 Document 1 Filed 04/09/21 Page 3 of 7 Page ID #:3
`
`2513670, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 12, 2009) (citing State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v.
`Dyer, 19 F.3d 514, 520 (10th Cir. 1994)).
`8.
`Plaintiff Temecula Gold and Jewelry, at all relevant times, owned and
`operated a jewelry store business in the state of California (See Complaint, ¶3.) Thus,
`Plaintiffs are California citizens.
`9.
`ADT is a limited liability company, the citizenship of which is
`determined by the citizenship of its members. See Johnson v. Colombia Props.
`Anchorage, LP, 437 F.3d 894 (9th Cir. 2006). ADT’s sole member is The ADT
`Security Corporation, a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business
`located in Boca Raton, Florida. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1), The ADT Security
`Corporation is a citizen of Delaware and Florida. ADT is therefore a citizen of
`Delaware and Florida. ADT is not, and was not at the time of filing, a citizen of the
`State of California within the meaning of the Acts of Congress relating to the removal
`of actions. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1).
`10.
`“ADT, Inc.” was improperly named as it has no business relationship
`with Plaintiffs. Nevertheless, ADT, Inc. is a Delaware corporation, with a principal
`place of business in Boca Raton, Florida. Thus, ADT, Inc. is not a citizen of
`California.
`“Protection 1” was improperly named. Protection One’s assets were
`11.
`acquired by ADT LLC. Protection One did not survive as an independent entity, and
`thus shares citizenship with ADT LLC, d/b/a Protection One (Delaware and Florida).
`“Protection 1” is not a citizen of California.
`12.
`For purposes of removal, the citizenship of defendants sued under
`fictitious names (John Does 1 through 50, inclusive) is disregarded. 28 U.S.C.
`§ 1441(a).
`
`4828-9407-9459
`
`3
`
`ADT LLC’S NOTICE OF REMOVAL
`
`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
`
`
`
`Case 5:21-cv-00635 Document 1 Filed 04/09/21 Page 4 of 7 Page ID #:4
`
`13. Because Plaintiffs are citizens of California, and ADT is a citizen of
`Delaware and Florida, requisite diversity of citizenship is satisfied under 28 U.S.C.
`§ 1332(a)(1).
`
`THE AMOUNT-IN-CONTROVERSY IS SATISFIED
`The amount in controversy in this case exceeds $75,000, excluding
`14.
`interest and costs.
`15. A defendant may utilize the allegations in a complaint to establish the
`amount in controversy. Singer v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 116 F.3d 373, 377
`(9th Cir. 1997), citing Allen v. R&H Oil & Gas Co., 63 F.3d 1326 (5th Cir. 1995);
`Conrad Assocs. v. Hartford Accident & Indemn. Co., 994 F. Supp. 1196, 1198 (N.D.
`Cal. 1998). Alternatively, a defendant may set forth facts in its notice of removal that
`demonstrate that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. Singer, 116 F.3d at 377.
`Courts may use “judicial experience and common sense” in determining whether it is
`“facially apparent” that the amount in controversy is satisfied. Dourian v. Stryker
`Corp., No. CV 12-1790 DSF (CWX), 2012 WL 12893752, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 25,
`2012).
`Plaintiffs seeks damages regarding two burglaries in July 2019 and on
`16.
`February 24, 2020 that resulted in Plaintiffs inability to continue operating the
`business. Specifically, Plaintiffs allege the jewelry business was broken into,
`vandalized, and most if not all of its high-end jewelry was stolen. Plaintiffs state the
`jewelry store “carries expensive, high-end items such as gold, jewelry, diamonds,
`emeralds, and other previous [sic] metals” [See Paragraphs 12, 19, Complaint]. When
`describing the February 24, 2020 burglary, Plaintiffs state that “[m]ost, if not all,
`valuables in Plaintiffs’ business were subsequently stolen.” [See Paragraph 17,
`Complaint]
`Plaintiffs also complain of “vandalism, theft, and destruction of
`17.
`Plaintiffs’ business.” [See Paragraph 18, Complaint]. Plaintiffs claim they suffered
`4
`
`ADT LLC’S NOTICE OF REMOVAL
`
`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
`
`4828-9407-9459
`
`
`
`Case 5:21-cv-00635 Document 1 Filed 04/09/21 Page 5 of 7 Page ID #:5
`
`“extensive property damage and destruction to their business” and “robbery of
`valuables, and vandalism” [See Paragraph 13, Complaint].
`18. As a result, Plaintiffs complain that “Plaintiffs’ entire business was
`robbed and destroyed,” “jewelry and monies were stolen, casings [sic] were broken,
`and the entire interior and framework was destroyed” [see Paragraph 20, Complaint],
`and that “Plaintiffs’ entire business was burglarized and destroyed” and “Plaintiffs
`were unable to operate their business.” [see Paragraph 21, Complaint].
`19.
`Plaintiffs’ Prayer for Relief seeks the following, excluding costs and
`interest, as follows: “1) The cost of repairing damaged and/or destroyed property
`according to proof; 2) Loss of the use benefit, and enjoyment of Plaintiffs’ personal
`property; 3) Loss of wages and/or any related displacement and/or out of pocket living
`expenses; 4) All Special damages according to proof; 5) All General damages
`including but not limited to worry, grief, distress, annoyance, anxiety, discomfort, and
`emotional damages, according to proof; 8) Loss of business income/business profits;
`and 10) All monies paid to [ADT] for which they were unjustly enriched.” [See
`Prayer for Relief, Complaint].
`20.
`Thus, Plaintiffs’ claim for damages exceeds the requisite amount in
`controversy for purposes of diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a).
`REMOVAL IS TIMELY
`21. Under 28 U.S.C. §1446(b), defendants may remove within 30 days after
`receipt of the initial pleading setting forth the claim for relief on which the action or
`proceeding is based.
`22. ADT accepted service on March 11, 2021.
`23.
`This Notice of Removal is therefore filed within thirty (30) days after
`receipt by ADT of the initial pleading upon which the aforesaid action is based
`pursuant to Rule 6(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 28 U.S.C.
`§ 1446(b).
`
`5
`
`ADT LLC’S NOTICE OF REMOVAL
`
`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
`
`4828-9407-9459
`
`
`
`Case 5:21-cv-00635 Document 1 Filed 04/09/21 Page 6 of 7 Page ID #:6
`
`THE VENUE REQUIREMENT IS MET
`
`24. Venue is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391 and 1441(a) because this
`Court is the United States District Court for the district and division corresponding to
`the place where the Complaint alleges a substantial part of the events giving rise to
`Plaintiffs’ claim occurred, and where the state-court action was pending.
`25.
`This is a civil action that falls under the Court’s original jurisdiction
`under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 and is one that may be removed to this Court based on
`diversity of citizenship under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441 and 1446.
`THE OTHER REMOVAL PREREQUISITES HAVE BEEN SATISFIED
`26. A copy of this Notice of Removal is being filed with the Clerk of the
`Superior Court of the State of California, County of Riverside.
`27.
`Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1446(d), defendant ADT is promptly providing
`written notice to Plaintiffs.
`28. As required by 28 U.S.C. § 1446(a), all copies of all process, pleadings,
`and orders in the possession of ADT in the removed case are attached hereto as Ex. A,
`and are incorporated herein by this reference.
`29.
`The prerequisites for removal under 28 U.S.C. § 1441 have been met.
`30.
`The allegations of this Notice are true and correct and within the
`jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Central District of California,
`Western Division.
`31.
`If any question arises as to the propriety of the removal of this action,
`ADT respectfully requests the opportunity to present a brief and oral argument in
`support of its position that this case is removable.
`WHEREFORE, ADT removes this action from the Superior Court of the State
`of California, County of Riverside, and requests that further proceedings be conducted
`in this Court as provided by law. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1446(d), a copy of this
`
`4828-9407-9459
`
`6
`
`ADT LLC’S NOTICE OF REMOVAL
`
`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
`
`
`
`Case 5:21-cv-00635 Document 1 Filed 04/09/21 Page 7 of 7 Page ID #:7
`
`Notice of Removal is being filed with the Clerk of the Superior Court for the County
`of Riverside, and written notice is being provided to Plaintiffs.
`
`Dated: April 9, 2021
`
`SHOOK, HARDY & BACON L.L.P.
`
`By: /s/ Gabriel S. Spooner
`Gabriel S. Spooner
`Attorneys for Defendants ADT LLC, d/b/a
`PROTECTION ONE (erroneously sued as
`ADT, INC. and PROTECTION 1)
`
`4828-9407-9459
`
`7
`
`ADT LLC’S NOTICE OF REMOVAL
`
`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
`
`