Bhavna Rohera et al v. Raytheon Aircraft Company et al

Filing 6

(IN CHAMBERS) Order Remanding Action to State Court by Judge R. Gary Klausner: Therefore, the Court finds that Defendants have failed to make the requisite showing of federal jurisdiction, and remands the action to state court for all further proceed ings. [See document for further details] Case remanded - remand order, docket sheet, letter of remand forwarded to Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, Case number BC457855 (Case Terminated. JS-6) (Attachments: # 1 Letter of Remand) (ake)

Download PDF
-FFM Bhavna Rohera et al v. Raytheon Aircraft Company et al Doc. 6 JS-6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Case No. Title CV 11-2530-RGK (FFMx) Date April 5, 2011 BHAVNA ROHERA, et al v. RAYTHEON AIRCRAFT CO., et al Present: The Honorable R. GARY KLAUSNER, U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE Sharon L. Williams Deputy Clerk Not Reported Court Reporter / Recorder Attorneys Present for Defendants: Not Present Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs: Not Present Proceedings: (IN CHAMBERS) Order Remanding Action to State Court On March 22, 2011, Bhavna Rohera, et al ("Plaintiffs"), filed suit against Raytheon Aircraft Co., et al ("Defendants'). In their Complaint, Plaintiffs assert state claims for wrongful death relating to an accident involving an aircraft. On March 25, 2011, Defendant Teledyne Continental Motors, Inc. ("Teledyne") removed the action to this Court alleging diversity of citizenship. Upon review of Teledyne's Notice of Removal, the Court hereby remands the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1332, district courts shall have original jurisdiction over any civil action in which the parties are citizens of different states and the action involves an amount in controversy that exceeds $75,000. After a plaintiff files a case in state court, the defendant attempting to remove the case to federal court bears the burden of proving the amount in controversy requirement has been met. Lowdermilk v. United States Bank Nat'l Ass'n, 479 F.3d 994, 998 (9th Cir. 2007). If the complaint does not allege the amount in controversy, the removing defendant must supply this jurisdictional fact in the Notice of Removal. Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566-567 (9th Cir. 1992). In its Notice of Removal, Teledyne states only that, because the action is one for wrongful death, it is facially apparent from the Complaint that Plaintiffs' seek damages in excess of $75,000. The Court finds this bare assertion, without even a scintilla of supporting fact, insufficient for satisfying its burden of proof. Therefore, the Court finds that Defendants have failed to make the requisite showing of federal jurisdiction, and remands the action to state court for all further proceedings. IT IS SO ORDERED. **cc: Remand Order, docket sheet, letter of remand forwarded to : Los Angeles County Superior Court (Case #BC457855). Initials of Preparer CV-90 (10/08) CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL slw Page 1 of 1 Dockets.Justia.com

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?