Reina Erazo v. Millard Mall Services Inc et al

Filing 9

ORDER REMANDING CASE TO LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT by Judge Otis D. Wright, II:The Court finds that MMS has not competently established that this Court has diversity jurisdiction over this case. Accordingly, the Court sua sponte REMANDS this case. The Clerk of Court shall close this case. cc: order, docket, remand letter to Los Angeles Superior Court, No. BC 631653. (Made JS-6. Case Terminated.) (Attachments: # 1 remand letter). (lc). Modified on 2/19/2014. (lc).

O
JS-6

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

United States District Court
Central District of California

8
9
10
11

REINA ERAZO,

Case No. 14-cv-00893-ODW(SSx)

12

Plaintiff,
v.
MILLARD MALL SERVICES, INC.,
THE MILLARD GROUP, and DOES 1
through 50, inclusive,

ORDER REMANDING CASE TO
LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT

13
14
15

Defendants.

16

On February 5, 2014, Defendant Millard Mall Services, Inc. (MMS) removed

17

this case to this Court, ostensibly invoking diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §

18

1332, 1441, and 1446. But after considering MMS’s Notice of Removal, the Court

19

finds that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over this action. The Court therefore

20

REMANDS this case to Los Angeles County Superior Court, case number case

21

number BC 531653.

22

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

23

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

24

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

25

375, 377 (1994). A defendant may only remove a suit filed in state court if the federal

26

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

27

courts strictly construe the removal statute against removal jurisdiction, and federal

28

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

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

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). Alternatively,

10

diversity jurisdiction can be established under the Class Action Fairness Act

11

(“CAFA”). Under CAFA, diversity jurisdiction exists in “mass action” suits so long

12

as the following requirements are met: (1) 100 or more plaintiffs; (2) common

13

questions of law or fact between plaintiffs’ claims; (3) minimal diversity, where at

14

least one plaintiff is diverse from one defendant; (4) aggregated claims in excess of $5

15

million; and (5) at least one plaintiff’s claim exceeding $75,000. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d);

16

Abrego v. Dow Chem. Co., 443 F.3d 676, 689 (9th Cir. 2006).

17

For complete-diversity purposes, a natural person’s citizenship is “determined

18

by her state of domicile, not her state of residence.” Kantor v. Warner-Lambert Co.,

19

265 F.3d 853, 857 (9th Cir. 2001); see also Jeffcott v. Donovan, 135 F.2d 213, 214

20

(9th Cir. 1943) (“Diversity of citizenship as a basis for the jurisdiction of a cause in

21

the District Court of the United States is not dependent upon the residence of any of

22

the parties, but upon their citizenship.”).

23

In its Notice of Removal, MMS asserts that “Plaintiff has been a citizen of the

24

State of California both at the time she commenced this action and also at the time of

25

removal.” (Not. of Removal ¶ 14 (citing ¶ 1 of the Complaint.) But Reina Erazo

26

avers that she is “an individual residing in the State of California.” (Comp. ¶ 1.)

27

While a party’s residence may be prima facie evidence of that party’s domicile when

28

an action is brought in federal court in the first instance, see State Farm Mut. Auto.

2

1

Ins. v. Dyer, 19 F.3d 514, 520 (10th Cir. 1994), mere residence allegations are

2

insufficient to establish citizenship on removal in light of the strong presumption

3

against removal jurisdiction. See Kanter, 265 F.3d at 857; Gaus, 980 F.2d at 567.

4

And MMS does not cite any objective facts to establish that Erazo is a

5

California citizen, such as “voting registration and voting practices, . . . location of

6

brokerage and bank accounts, location of spouse and family, membership in unions

7

and other organizations, place of employment or business, driver’s license and

8

automobile registration, and payment of taxes.” Lew v. Moss, 797 F.2d 747, 750 (9th

9

Cir. 1986). The Court therefore finds that MMS has not competently established that

10

this Court has diversity jurisdiction over this case. Accordingly, the Court sua sponte

11

REMANDS this case to Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County, 111 N.

12

Hill Street, Los Angeles, California 90012, case number BC 531653. See Fed. R. Civ.

13

P. 12(h)(3) (“If the court determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter

14

jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action.”). The Clerk of Court shall close this

15

case.

16

IT IS SO ORDERED.

17
18

February 18, 2014

19
20
21

____________________________________
OTIS D. WRIGHT, II
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

3