Harriette Tapia v. The Clarks Companies, N.A. et al
Filing
11
MINUTES OF IN CHAMBERS - COURT ORDER by Judge Percy Anderson: Defendants have failed to meet their burden to demonstrate the Court's diversity jurisdiction. Accordingly, the Court remands this action to Los Angeles Superior Court, Case No. BC482183. ( Case Terminated. Made JS-6 ) Court Reporter: Not Reported. (Attachments: # 1 CV-103 Remand Transmittal Letter) (gk)
JS-6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.
CV 12-5717 PA (JEMx)
Title
Harriette Tapia v. The Clarks Companies, N.A., et al.
Present: The
Honorable
Date
July 17, 2012
PERCY ANDERSON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Paul Songco
Not Reported
N/A
Deputy Clerk
Court Reporter
Tape No.
Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs:
Attorneys Present for Defendants:
None
None
Proceedings:
IN CHAMBERS - COURT ORDER
Before the Court is a Notice of Removal filed by defendants Clarks Companies, North America
(also erroneously names as The Clarks Companies, N.A.), C. & J. Retail, Inc., C. & J. Clark America,
Inc., and The Clarks Companies Foundation (“Defendants”) on July 2, 2012. Defendants assert that this
Court has jurisdiction over the action brought against it by plaintiff Harriette Tapia (on behalf of herself
and all other similarly situated individuals) (“Plaintiff”) based on the Court’s diversity jurisdiction. See
28 U.S.C. § 1332.
Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, having subject matter jurisdiction only over
matters authorized by the Constitution and Congress. See, e.g., Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co.,
511 U.S. 375, 377, 114 S. Ct. 1673, 1675, 128 L. Ed. 2d 391 (1994). A suit filed in state court may be
removed to federal court if the federal court would have had original jurisdiction over the suit. 28
U.S.C. § 1441(a). A removed action must be remanded to state court if the federal court lacks subject
matter jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). “The burden of establishing federal jurisdiction is on the party
seeking removal, and the removal statute is strictly construed against removal jurisdiction.” Prize Frize,
Inc. v. Matrix (U.S.) Inc., 167 F.3d 1261, 1265 (9th Cir. 1999). “Federal jurisdiction must be rejected if
there is any doubt as to the right of removal in the first instance.” Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564,
566 (9th Cir. 1992).
In attempting to invoke this Court’s diversity jurisdiction, Defendants must prove that there is
complete diversity of citizenship between the parties and that the amount in controversy exceeds
$75,000. 28 U.S.C. § 1332.1/ To establish citizenship for diversity purposes, a natural person must be a
citizen of the United States and be domiciled in a particular state. Kantor v. Wellesley Galleries, Ltd.,
704 F.2d 1088, 1090 (9th Cir. 1983). Persons are domiciled in the places they reside with the intent to
1/
The Court does not address any issues concerning the potential sufficiency of
Defendants’ efforts to meet the amount in controversy requirement by suggesting that Plaintiff’s
recovery could be calculated based on an aggregation of the potential class’ recovery.
CV-90 (06/04)
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Page 1 of 2
JS-6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.
CV 12-5717 PA (JEMx)
Date
Title
July 17, 2012
Harriette Tapia v. The Clarks Companies, N.A., et al.
remain or to which they intend to return. See Kanter v. Warner-Lambert Co., 265 F.3d 853, 857 (9th
Cir. 2001). “A person residing in a given state is not necessarily domiciled there, and thus is not
necessarily a citizen of that state.” Id. For the purposes of diversity jurisdiction, a corporation is a
citizen of any state where it is incorporated and of the state where it has its principal place of business.
28 U.S.C. § 1332(c); see also Indus. Tectonics, Inc. v. Aero Alloy, 912 F.2d 1090, 1092 (9th Cir. 1990).
The Notice of Removal alleges: “Defendant is [sic] informed and believes, and Plaintiff alleges,
that Plaintiff is now and, since this action was filed on April 3, 2012, has been a citizen of California.
(FAC ¶6).” (Notice of Removal 4:27-5:1.) The First Amended Complaint alleges that plaintiff “is, and
at all relevant times was, a competent adult residing in California. . . . Ms. Tapia worked for Clarks as a
Manager in Los Angeles County, California from approximately August 2009 until December 2011.”
(First Amended Complaint 4:2-7.) Because the only support for defendants’ allegation of Plaintiff’s
citizenship is an allegation of residence, and residence is not the same as citizenship, the Notice of
Removal’s allegations are insufficient to establish plaintiffs’ citizenship. “Absent unusual
circumstances, a party seeking to invoke diversity jurisdiction should be able to allege affirmatively the
actual citizenship of the relevant parties.” Kanter, 265 F.3d at 857; Bradford v. Mitchell Bros. Truck
Lines, 217 F. Supp. 525, 527 (N.D. Cal. 1963) (“A petition [for removal] alleging diversity of
citizenship upon information and belief is insufficient.”). As a result, defendants’ allegations, made on
information and belief, are insufficient to invoke this Court’s diversity jurisdiction.
Therefore, defendants have failed to meet their burden to demonstrate the Court’s diversity
jurisdiction. Accordingly, the Court remands this action to Los Angeles Superior Court, Case No.
BC482183. See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
CV-90 (06/04)
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Page 2 of 2
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?