Rosa Vandiver v. The Western and Southern Life Insurance Company et al

Filing 15

ORDER REMANDING CASE TO LOS ANGELES COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT by Judge Otis D. Wright, II:The Court determines that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over this case. The Court accordingly REMANDS this case to the Los Angeles County Superior Court. cc: order, docket, remand letter to Los Angeles Superior Court, Case number BC 499815 Case Terminated. Made JS-6 (Attachments: # 1 remand letter). (lc). Modified on 2/27/2013 (lc).

O
JS-6

1
2
3
4
5
6

cc: order, docket, remand letter to
Los Angeles Superior Court,
No. BC 499815

7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

ROSA VANDIVER,

11
12
13

v.

Plaintiff,

THE WESTERN AND SOUTHERN LIFE
INSURANCE CO. et al.,

Case No. 2:13-cv-01227-ODW (VBKx)
ORDER REMANDING CASE TO LOS
ANGELES COUNTY SUPERIOR
COURT

Defendants.

14
15
16

On February 20, 2013, Defendants The Western and Southern Life Insurance

17

Co. and Thomas C. Johnson removed Plaintiff Rosa Vandiver’s case to this Court.

18

But after carefully considering the papers filed in conjunction with the Notice of

19

Removal, the Court determines that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over this case.

20

The Court accordingly REMANDS this case to the Los Angeles County Superior

21

Court.

22

Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, only having subject-matter

23

jurisdiction over matters authorized by the Constitution and Congress. See, e.g.,

24

Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). A suit filed in

25

state court may be removed to federal court if the federal court would have had

26

original jurisdiction over the suit. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). But a removed action must be

27

remanded to state court if the federal court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction. 28

28

U.S.C. § 1447(c).

1

The removing party bears the burden of establishing federal jurisdiction.

2

Durham v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 445 F.3d 1247, 1252 (9th Cir. 2006) (citing Gaus

3

v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992)). Here, Defendants claim that this

4

Court has subject-matter jurisdiction over this state-law action based upon diversity

5

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. (ECF No. 1.)

6

For a federal court to be vested with diversity jurisdiction, there must be

7

complete diversity between the parties, and the amount in controversy must exceed

8

the sum or value $75,000.00, exclusive of interest and costs. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a).

9

When a complaint is silent as to the total amount in controversy, the defendant bears

10

the burden of proving that amount by a preponderance of the evidence. Guglielmino

11

v. McKee Foods Corp., 506 F.3d 696, 701 (9th Cir. 2007).

12

An individual’s citizenship is “determined by her state of domicile, not her state

13

of residence. A person’s domicile is her permanent home, where she resides with the

14

intention to remain or to which she intends to return.” Kanter v. Warner-Lambert Co.,

15

265 F.3d 853, 857 (9th Cir. 2001). Although the determination of a party’s domicile

16

is a mixed question of law and fact, it is a fact-intensive inquiry and the defendant

17

bears the burden of establishing it. Lew v. Moss, 797 F.2d 747, 749–50 (9th Cir.

18

1986).

19

The Court finds that Defendants failed to carry their burden of proving

20

Vandiver’s citizenship. Defendants merely assert that Vandiver is a California citizen

21

because Vandiver alleges that she is a California resident in her Complaint. (Notice of

22

Removal ¶ 12; see also Compl. ¶ 2.) But Defendants erroneously attempt to conflate

23

residency with citizenship.

24

Vandiver is a California citizen, such as “voting registration and voting practices,

25

location of personal and real property, location of brokerage and bank accounts,

26

location of spouse and family, membership in unions and other organizations, place of

27

employment or business, driver’s license and automobile registration, and payment of

28

taxes.”

They cite no other objective facts to establish that

Lew, 797 F.2d at 750.

Further, Defendants’ assertion of Vandiver’s

2

1

citizenship under “information and belief” falls far short of the standard necessary to

2

establish this Court’s diversity jurisdiction over this action. (Notice of Removal ¶ 12.)

3

In light of the foregoing, the Court hereby REMANDS this case to the Los

4
5

Angeles County Superior Court. The Clerk of Court shall close this case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

6
7

February 27, 2013

8
9
10

____________________________________
OTIS D. WRIGHT II
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

3