Bonnie Miller et al v. Greyhound Lines Inc et al

Filing 5

ORDER REMANDING CASE TO LOS ANGELES COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT by Judge Otis D. Wright, II. cc: order, docket, remand letter to Los Angeles Superior Court,number BC513237 Case Terminated. Made JS-6 (Attachments: # 1 remand letter). (lc) Modified on 7/30/2013. (lc).

O
J S-6

1
2
3
4
5
6

cc: order, docket, remand letter to
Los Angeles Superior Court, No. BC513237

7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

BONNIE MILLER and BRUCE MILLER, Case No. 2:13-cv-05341-ODW(SHx)

12
13
14

v.

Plaintiffs,

GREYHOUND LINES, INC. and DOES
1–10, inclusive,

ORDER REMANDING CASE TO
A
LOS ANGELES COUNTY
SUPERIOR COURT

Defendants.

15
16
17

On July 24, 2013, Defendant Greyhound Lines, Inc. removed this action to this

18

Court from the Los Angeles County Superior Court. But after carefully considering

19

the papers filed with the Notice of Removal, the Court determines that Greyhound has

20

failed to satisfy its burden of establishing federal jurisdiction. The Court therefore

21

REMANDS this action back to Los Angeles County Superior Court.

22

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

23

jurisdiction over matters authorized by the Constitution and Congress. U.S. Const.

24

art. III, § 2, cl. 1; e.g., Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377

25

(1994).

26

A suit filed in state court may be removed to federal court if the federal court

27

would have had original jurisdiction over the suit. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). But courts

28

strictly construe § 1441 against a finding of removal jurisdiction, and “[f]ederal

1

jurisdiction must be rejected if there is any doubt as to the right of removal in the first

2

instance.” Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992). The party seeking

3

removal bears the burden of establishing federal jurisdiction. Durham v. Lockheed

4

Martin Corp., 445 F.3d 1247, 1252 (9th Cir. 2006) (citing Gaus, 980 F.2d at 566).

5

Federal courts have original jurisdiction where an action presents a federal

6

question under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, or diversity of citizenship under 28 U.S.C. § 1332.

7

To exercise diversity jurisdiction, a federal court must find complete diversity of

8

citizenship among the adverse parties, and the amount in controversy must exceed

9

$75,000, usually exclusive of interest and costs. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a).

10

With respect to citizenship, Greyhound’s Notice of Removal asserts that it is

11

“informed and believes that plaintiffs Bonnie Miller and Bruce Miller are and were at

12

all times relevant citizens of the state of Iowa.” (Notice of Removal ¶ 5.) Greyhound

13

apparently formed this information and belief based on its litigation adjuster’s review

14

of the claim materials, which revealed that “plaintiffs reside in Dubuque, Iowa.”

15

(Ryan Decl. ¶ 3.)

16

citizenship. A natural person’s citizenship is “determined by her state of domicile, not

17

her state of residence.” Kantor v. Warner-Lambert Co., 265 F.3d 853, 857 (9th Cir.

18

2001); see also Jeffcott v. Donovan, 135 F.2d 213, 214 (9th Cir. 1943) (“Diversity of

19

citizenship as a basis for the jurisdiction of a cause in the District Court of the United

20

States is not dependent upon the residence of any of the parties, but upon their

21

citizenship.”). And while a party’s residence may be prima facie evidence of that

22

party’s domicile when an action is originally brought in federal court, residency

23

allegations in alone do not suffice to establish citizenship on removal in light of the

24

strong presumption against removal jurisdiction. See State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. v.

25

Dyer , 19 F.3d 514, 520 (10th Cir. 1994); see Kantor , 265 F.3d at 857; Gaus, 980 F.2d

26

at 567. Moreover, Greyhound cites no other objective facts to establish that the

27

Millers are domiciled in Iowa, such as “voting registration and voting practices,

28

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

But residency allegations alone are inadequate to establish

2

1

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

2

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

3

taxes.” Lew v. Moss, 797 F.2d 747, 750 (9th Cir. 1986).

4

Further, Greyhound’s allegation that it “is informed and believes” that the

5

Millers are Iowa citizens is likewise inadequate to establish diversity jurisdiction on

6

removal. On removal, “alleging diversity of citizenship upon information and belief is

7

insufficient.” Bradford v. Mitchell Bros. Truck Lines, 217 F. Supp. 525, 527 (N.D.

8

Cal. 1963); see also Kantor , 265 F.3d at 857 (“Absent unusual circumstances, a party

9

seeking to invoke diversity jurisdiction should be able to allege affirmatively the

10

actual citizenship of the relevant parties.”).

11

Greyhound also fails to establish that it is more likely than not the amount in

12

controversy exceeds $75,000. Where, as here, a plaintiff does not specify a particular

13

damages figure in the state-court complaint, the removing defendant must provide

14

evidence establishing that it is “more likely than not” that the amount in controversy

15

exceeds $75,000.00. Sanchez v. Monumental Life Ins. Co., 102 F.3d 398, 404 (9th

16

Cir. 1996). Evidence the court may consider includes “facts presented in the removal

17

petition as well as any summary-judgment-type evidence relevant to the amount in

18

controversy at the time of removal.” Matheson v. Progressive Specialty Ins. Co., 319

19

F.3d 1089, 1090 (9th Cir. 2003).

20

As the proponent of federal jurisdiction, Greyhound bore the duty to establish

21

by facts or summary-judgment-like evidence, or both, that it is more likely than not

22

that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 in this case. But instead of rising to

23

this duty, Greyhound merely paid lip service to its burden and proceeded to list the

24

categories of damages demanded in the Complaint—without including any additional

25

facts, evidence, or even analogies to similar cases. (Notice of Removal ¶ 11.) This

26

does nothing whatsoever to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the

27

categories of damages Plaintiffs seek could, in the aggregate, exceed $75,000 and is

28

therefore plainly insufficient to satisfy Greyhound’s burden on removal.

3

1

Because Greyhound fails to meet its high burden on removal to establish either

2

complete diversity between the parties or that the amount in controversy is more likely

3

than not to exceed $75,000, the Court REMANDS this case to Los Angeles County

4

Superior Court, Case Number BC513237. The Clerk of Court shall close this case.

5

IT IS SO ORDERED.

6

July 29, 2013

7
8
9

____________________________________
OTIS D. WRIGHT, II
UNITED STATES DISTRICT J UDGE

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

4