Aspen Specialty Insurance Company v. U-Line Corporation et al

Filing 7

MINUTES OF IN CHAMBERS - COURT ORDER by Judge Percy Anderson: Because Defendant has alleged Plaintiff's citizenship on "information and belief," the Notice of Removal does not allege affirmatively Plaintiff's actual citizenship. D efendant's allegations are thus insufficient to invoke this Court's diversity jurisdiction. Accordingly, the Court remands this action to Los Angeles Superior Court, Case No. SC121346. ( 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 13-7671 PA (PJWx)

Title

Aspen Specialty Insurance Co. v. U-Line Corp., et al.

Present: The
Honorable

Date

October 29, 2013

PERCY ANDERSON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Paul Songco

Not Repoerted

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 U-Line Corporation (“Defendant”)
on October 17, 2013. Defendant asserts that this Court has jurisdiction over this action, brought by
plaintiff Aspen Specialty Insurance Co. (“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, 395 (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. “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.” Indus.
Tectonics, Inc. v. Aero Alloy, 912 F.2d 1090, 1092 (9th Cir. 1990) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)).
In the Notice of Removal, Defendant states that it “is informed and believes, and upon that basis
alleges, that Plaintiff is a North Dakota corporation, with its principal place of business in the state of
North Dakota.” (Notice of Removal ¶ 3.) However, “[a]bsent unusual circumstances, a party seeking to
invoke diversity jurisdiction should be able to allege affirmatively the actual citizenship of the relevant
parties.” Kanter v. Warner-Lambert Co., 265 F.3d 853, 857 (9th Cir. 2001); see also Bradford v.

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 13-7671 PA (PJWx)

Date

Title

October 29, 2013

Aspen Specialty Insurance Co. v. U-Line Corp., et al.

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.”). Because Defendant has alleged
Plaintiff’s citizenship on “information and belief,” the Notice of Removal does not allege affirmatively
Plaintiff’s actual citizenship. Defendant’s allegations are thus insufficient to invoke this Court’s
diversity jurisdiction.
Accordingly, the Court remands this action to Los Angeles Superior Court, Case No. SC121346.
See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).
IT IS SO ORDERED.

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 2 of 2