Svetlana Kreichmar v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company et al

Filing 8

MINUTES OF IN CHAMBERS - COURT ORDER by Judge Percy Anderson: Defendant has not met its burden to establish this Court's jurisdiction. This action is hereby remanded to Los Angeles Superior Court, Case No. BC 487387 for lack of federal subject matter jurisdiction. ( 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 12-9351 PA (PLAx)

Title

Svetlana Kreichmar v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, et al.

Present: The
Honorable

Date

November 5, 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 defendant Metropolitan Life Insurance
Company (“Defendant”) on October 31, 2012. Defendant asserts that this Court has jurisdiction over
the action brought against them by plaintiff Svetlana Kreichmar (“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, Defendant 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. 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
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).
Here, the Notice of Removal alleges that Plaintiff “is a citizen and resident of California, and at
all relevant times has been a citizen and resident of California.” (Notice of Removal 3:3-4.) To support
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 12-9351 PA (PLAx)

Date

Title

November 5, 2012

Svetlana Kreichmar v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, et al.

that allegation, Defendant cites to Plaintiff’s Complaint, which alleges that Plaintiff “is a resident of Los
Angeles, California.” (Complaint ¶ 7.) Since the only support for Defendant’s 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 Plaintiff’s citizenship. The Ninth Circuit has held
that “[a]bsent 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, Defendant’s
allegations are insufficient to invoke this Court’s diversity jurisdiction.
Accordingly, Defendant has not met its burden to establish this Court’s jurisdiction. This action
is hereby remanded to Los Angeles Superior Court, Case No. BC 487387 for lack of federal subject
matter jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).
IT IS SO ORDERED.

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 2 of 2