James Coggins v. Home Depot U.S.A. Inc.

Filing 9

MINUTE ORDER (IN CHAMBERS) by Judge Percy Anderson: remanding case to Los Angeles County Superior Court. Case number BC536697. Case Terminated. Made JS-6. (Attachments: # 1 Transmittal Letter) (rne)

JS-6

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

CV 14-2944 PA (SHx)

Title

James Coggins v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., et al.

Present: The Honorable

Date

April 22, 2014

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 Home Depot U.S.A., Inc.
(“Defendant”) on April 16, 2013. In its Notice of Removal, Defendant asserts that this Court has
jurisdiction over the action brought against it by plaintiff James Coggins (“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 14-2944 PA (SHx)

Date

Title

April 22, 2014

James Coggins v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., et al.

The Notice of Removal asserts that “Plaintiff alleges that he is, and at all relevant times was, a
resident of California. FAC, ¶ 1. Plaintiff is therefore a California citizen.” As the Notice of Removal
indicates, the Complaint alleges only Plaintiff’s residence. Because the only support for Defendant’s
allegation of Plaintiff’s citizenship is an allegation of residence, and residence is not the same as
citizenship, the Notice of Removal’s allegations are insufficient to establish Plaintiff’s citizenship.
“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 County Superior Court, Case
No. BC536697. See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).
IT IS SO ORDERED.

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 2 of 2