Lorraine Ventura v. Macy's Inc., et al

Filing 7

ORDER REMANDING CASE TO SUPERIOR COURT. Defendants have not 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 by Judge Otis D. Wright, II. cc: order, docket, remand letter to to Los Angeles County Superior Court, Case number BC515428, Case Terminated. Made JS-6 (Attachments: # 1 remand letter). (lc) .Modified on 5/30/2014 (lc). (Main Document 7 replaced on 5/30/2014) (lc).

O
JS-6

1
2
3
4
5
6

United States District Court
Central District of California

7
8

LORRAINE VENTURA,

9
10
11
12
13
14
15

Plaintiff,
v.
MACY’S, INC., MACY’S CORPORATE
SERVICES, INC., MACY’S
DEPARTMENT STORE, DOES 1 to 50,
inclusive,

Case No. 14-cv-03976-ODW(AJWx)
ORDER REMANDING CASE TO
SUPERIOR COURT

Defendants.

16
17

On May 23, 2014, Defendants removed this action to this Court, invoking

18

diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 and 1441. (ECF No. 1.) But after

19

considering Defendants’ Notice of Removal, the Court finds that it lacks subject-

20

matter jurisdiction over this action. The Court therefore REMANDS this case to Los

21

Angeles County Superior Court, case number BC515428.

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, Defendants assert that Lorraine Ventura is “a citizen

24

of the State of California, County of Los Angeles.” (Not. of Removal ¶ 3.) But

25

Defendants cite no portion of Ventura’s complaint to support this assertion. Indeed,

26

nowhere in the Complaint does it refer to Ventura’s citizenship.

27

And Defendants do not cite any objective facts to establish that Ventura is a

28

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

2

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

Cir. 1986). The Court therefore finds that Defendants have not established that this

5

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

6

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

7

Hill Street, Los Angeles, California 900121, case number BC515428. See Fed. R.

8

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

9

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

10
11

case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

12
13

May 30, 2014

14
15
16

____________________________________
OTIS D. WRIGHT, II
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

cc: order, docket, remand letter to
Los Angeles
Superi

27
28

3

515428