Hossein Kordlou v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company et al

Filing 9

MINUTES OF IN CHAMBERS - COURT ORDER by Judge Percy Anderson: Defendant has failed to meet its burden to demonstrate the Court's diversity jurisdiction. Accordingly, the Court remands this action to Los Angeles Superior Court, Case No. LC100286. ( 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 13-4042 PA (RZx)

Title

Hossein Kordlou v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, et al.

Present: The
Honorable

Date

June 11, 2013

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 June 5, 2013. Defendant asserts that this Court has jurisdiction over the
action brought against it by plaintiff Hossein Kordlou (“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).

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 13-4042 PA (RZx)

Date

Title

June 11, 2013

Hossein Kordlou v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, et al.

The Notice of Removal alleges that “Plaintiff is a citizen and resident of California, and at all
relevant times has been a citizen and a resident of California. (Exhibit “A”, Cmplt., ¶ 4).” (Notice of
Removal ¶ 4.) However, the Complaint only alleges Plaintiff’s residence. (Complaint ¶ 4.) Because an
individual is not necessarily domiciled where he or she resides, Defendant’s allegations of Plaintiff’s
domiciliary and citizenship, based on an allegation of residence, are insufficient to establish Plaintiff’s
citizenship. See Kanter v. Warner-Lambert Co., 265 F.3d at 857. “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, Defendant’s allegations are insufficient to invoke this Court’s
diversity jurisdiction.
Therefore, Defendant has failed to meet its burden to demonstrate the Court’s diversity
jurisdiction. Accordingly, the Court remands this action to Los Angeles Superior Court, Case No.
LC100286. See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).
IT IS SO ORDERED.

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 2 of 2