throbber
Case 5:21-cv-00635 Document 1 Filed 04/09/21 Page 1 of 7 Page ID #:1
`
`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
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket