Michael Aguilar et al v. Home Depot USA Inc et al

Filing 7

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION by Judge Ronald S.W. Lew.It is ORDERED that Defendant Home Depot show cause why this case is removable to federal district court based on diversity of citizenship. Defendant Home Depot has no later than March 22, 2013, to respond, demonstrating why this case should not be remanded for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. (jre)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11 Michael Aguilar and Matilda
Aguilar,
12
Plaintiffs,
13
v.

18

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

19

The Court is in receipt of Defendant Home Depot

14 Home Depot U.S.A., Inc.;
John Doe; and Does 1 to
15 100,
16
Defendants.
17

CV 13-01188 RSWL (OPx)
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE:
SUBJECT MATTER
JURISDICTION

20 U.S.A., Inc.’s (“Home Depot”) Notice of Removal, which
21 alleges diversity jurisdiction as the ground for
22 removing this Action to federal court [1].
23

The removal statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1441, allows a

24 defendant to remove a case originally filed in state
25 court when the case presents a federal question or is
26 an action between citizens of different states and
27 involves an amount in controversy that exceeds $75,000.
28 See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441(a), (b).
1

See also 28 U.S.C. §§

1 1331, 1332(a).
2

The Ninth Circuit “strictly construe[s] the removal

3 statute against removal jurisdiction,” and “[f]ederal
4 jurisdiction must be rejected if there is any doubt as
5 to the right of removal in the first instance.”

Gaus

6 v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992)
7 (citing Boggs v. Lewis, 863 F.2d 662, 663 (9th Cir.
8 1988), Takeda v. Northwestern Nat’l Life Ins. Co., 765
9 F.2d 815, 818 (9th Cir. 1985), and Libhart v. Santa
10 Monica Dairy Co., 592 F.2d 1062, 1064 (9th Cir. 1979)).
11 “The ‘strong presumption’ against removal jurisdiction
12 means that the defendant always has the burden of
13 establishing that removal is proper.”

Id. (citing

14 Nishimoto v. Federman-Bachrach & Assocs., 903 F.2d 709,
15 712 n. 3 (9th Cir. 1990), and Emich v. Touche Ross &
16 Co., 846 F.2d 1190, 1195 (9th Cir. 1988)).
17

“[J]urisdiction founded on [diversity] requires

18 that parties be in complete diversity and the amount in
19 controversy exceed $75,000.”

Matheson v. Progressive

20 Specialty Ins. Co., 319 F.3d 1089, 1090 (9th Cir.
21 2003).

See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1).

Federal courts

22 have jurisdiction only where there is complete
23 diversity: the plaintiff’s citizenship must be diverse
24 from that of each named defendant.
25 1332(a)(1), 1332(c)(1).

28 U.S.C. §§

See Caterpillar, Inc. v.

26 Lewis, 519 U.S. 61, 68 n. 3 (1996).

See also Cook v.

27 AVI Casino Enters., Inc., No. 07–15088, 2008 WL
28 4890167, *3 (9th Cir. Nov. 14, 2008) (Unpub.Disp.).
2

1

As the party invoking federal jurisdiction in this

2 case, Defendant Home Depot has the burden of
3 establishing the existence of subject matter
4 jurisdiction.

See Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co.,

5 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994); In re Ford Motor Co., 264
6 F.3d 952, 957 (9th Cir. 2001); Thompson v. McCombe, 99
7 F.3d 352, 353 (9th Cir. 1996).

The Notice of Removal

8 alleges that removal is proper based on diversity
9 jurisdiction.

However, the Complaint and Notice of

10 Removal are completely silent on the citizenship of the
11 Parties.

Accordingly, whether complete diversity

12 exists between the Parties at the time of the
13 commencement of this Action cannot be determined.
14

Therefore, it is ORDERED that Defendant Home Depot

15 show cause why this case is removable to federal
16 district court based on diversity of citizenship.
17 Defendant Home Depot has no later than March 22, 2013,
18 to respond, demonstrating why this case should not be
19 remanded for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
20
21 IT IS SO ORDERED.
22 DATED: March 7, 2013
23
24
25

HONORABLE RONALD S.W. LEW
Senior, U.S. District Court Judge

26
27
28
3