Owen Morgan v. LA Live Properties LLC et al

Filing 7

MINUTES IN CHAMBERS ORDER by Judge Stephen V. Wilson For the foregoing reasons, Defendants have failed to carry the burden of establishing that removal is proper. The Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction and hereby remands the action forthwith to Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles. (remanding case to Los Angeles County Superior Court in Los Angeles, Case number BC501320) Case Terminated. Made JS-6 (Attachments: # 1 Letter Remand to State Court) (pj)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.

2:13-cv-4855-SVW-FFMx

Title

Owen Morgan v. L.A. Live Properties LLC et al

Present: The Honorable

Date

July 16, 2013

STEPHEN V. WILSON, U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

Paul M. Cruz

N/A

Deputy Clerk

Court Reporter / Recorder

Tape No.

Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs:

Attorneys Present for Defendants:

N/A

N/A

Proceedings:
I.

IN CHAMBERS ORDER

INTRODUCTION

On February 20, 2013, Plaintiff Owen Morgan (“Plaintiff”) filed the instant action in Los
Angeles County Superior Court against Defendants L.A. Live Properties, AEG Live L.A., and Nokia
Inc. (collectively “Defendants”) for general negligence and premises liability. (Notice of Removal (Dkt.
1) at 1-2). Plaintiff alleges that while he was lawfully on Defendant’ premises, Defendants breached
their duty of care when Plaintiff slipped and fell due to the wet floor in the men’s bathroom which
resulted in Plaintiff sustaining personal injuries. (Id., Ex. A at 4). Plaintiff requests $5,000,000 for pain
and suffering, $48,704.76 for medical expenses, $24,000 for loss of hearing to date, and $2,000 for out
of pocket expenses and miscellaneous costs. (Id. at 4).
On July 5, 2013, Defendants removed the action to this Court on the basis of diversity
jurisdiction. (Dkt. 1 at 2). For the reasons below, removal is improper, and the matter is REMANDED
to state court.
II.

DISCUSSION

Where a case has been removed, a federal court may remand for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction at any time before final judgment. See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) (“If at any time before final
judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the case shall be remanded”).
The court may – indeed must – remand an action sua sponte if it determines that it lacks subject matter
jurisdiction. See Kelton Arms Condo. Owners Ass’n v. Homestead Ins. Co., 346 F.3d 1190, 1192 (9th
:
Initials of Preparer
CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

PMC
Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.

2:13-cv-4855-SVW-FFMx

Date

Title

July 16, 2013

Owen Morgan v. L.A. Live Properties LLC et al

Cir. 2003). A “strong presumption” against removal jurisdiction exists. Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d
564, 567 (9th Cir. 1992). In seeking removal, the defendant bears the burden of proving that jurisdiction
exists. Scott v. Breeland, 792 F.2d 925, 927 (9th Cir. 1986).
A.

Diversity Jurisdiction

“The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions where the matter in
controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and is between []
citizens of different States . . . .” 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). However, a civil action may not be removed on
the basis of diversity jurisdiction where any removing defendant is a citizen of the state in which the
action is brought. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b)(2). A corporation generally is deemed to be a citizen of every
state by which it has been incorporated and of the state where it has its principal place of business. 28
U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1).
In the present case, Defendants L.A. Live Properties and AEG Live L.A. are Delaware limited
liability companies with their headquarters and principal places of business in Los Angeles, California.
Because Defendants are citizens of California, removal on the basis of diversity jurisdiction is improper.
Therefore, the Court lacks diversity jurisdiction.
III.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Defendants have failed to carry the burden of establishing that
removal is proper. The Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction and hereby remands the action forthwith
to Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles.

:
Initials of Preparer
CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

PMC
Page 2 of 2