Mark Boullet v. Geodis Wilson USA, Inc. et al

Filing 13

ORDER SUA SPONTE REMANDING CASE TO SUPERIOR COURT by Judge Otis D. Wright, II. cc: order, docket, remand letter to to Los Angeles Superior Court, Case number BC541966 Case Terminated. Made JS-6 (Attachments: # 1 remand letter) .(lc). Modified on 6/5/2014 (lc).

O
JS-6

1
2
3
4

United States District Court
Central District of California

5
6
7
8

MARK BOULLET,

9
10
11
12
13

Plaintiff,
v.
GEODIS WILSON USA, INC. KEN
SMITH, and DOES 1 through 250,
inclusive,

Case No. 14-cv-03990-ODW(FFMx)
ORDER REMANDING CASE TO
SUPERIOR COURT

14
15

Defendants.

16

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

17

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

18

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

19

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

20

Angeles County Superior Court, case number BC541966.

21

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

22

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

23

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

24

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

25

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

26

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

27

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

28

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

1

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

2

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

3

566).

4

Federal courts have original jurisdiction where an action presents a federal

5

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

6

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

7

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

8

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

9

diversity jurisdiction can be established under the Class Action Fairness Act

10

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

11

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

12

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

13

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

14

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

15

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

16

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

17

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

18

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

19

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

20

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

21

the parties, but upon their citizenship.”).

22

In its Notice of Removal, Defendants assert that Mark Boullet is “a resident and

23

citizen of the State of California.” (Not. of Removal 3.) Defendants cite to Boullet’s

24

Complaint in support of this assertion.

25

resident—not a citizen—of California. (Compl. ¶ 5.) While a party’s residence may

26

be prima facie evidence of that party’s domicile when an action is brought in federal

27

court in the first instance, see State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. v. Dyer, 19 F.3d 514, 520

28

(10th Cir. 1994), mere residence allegations are insufficient to establish citizenship on

But Boulett merely states that he is a

2

1

removal in light of the strong presumption against removal jurisdiction. See Kanter,

2

265 F.3d at 857; Gaus, 980 F.2d at 567.

3

And Defendants do not cite to additional objective facts to establish that Boullet

4

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

5

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

6

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

7

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

8

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

9

that Defendants have not established that this Court has diversity jurisdiction over this

10

case. Accordingly, the Court sua sponte REMANDS this case to Superior Court of

11

California, Los Angeles County, 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, California

12

900121, case number BC541966.

13

determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss

14

the action.”). The Clerk of Court shall close this case.

15

See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3) (“If the court

IT IS SO ORDERED.

16
17

June 5, 2014

18
19
20

____________________________________
OTIS D. WRIGHT, II
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

cc: order, docket, remand letter to
Los Angeles Superior Court, No. BC 541966

3