Steve Morales v. Enrique Iglesias et al

Filing 13

MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS - COURT ORDER by Judge Percy Anderson. For the foregoing reason, Defendant has failed to meet its burden to demonstrate the Court's diversity jurisdiction. Accordingly, the Court remands this action to the Los Angeles County Superior Court, Case No. BC564802. See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). IT IS SO ORDERED. (MAILED 1/5/15) Case Terminated. Made JS-6 (Attachments: # 1 cv-103) (lom)

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

CV 14-9650 PA (VBKx)

Title

Steve Morales v. Enrique Iglesias

Present: The
Honorable

Date

January 2, 2015

PERCY ANDERSON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Julieta Lozano

Not Reported

N/A

Deputy Clerk

Court Reporter

Tape No.

Attorneys Present for Plaintiff:

Attorneys Present for Defendant:

None

None

Proceedings:

IN CHAMBERS - COURT ORDER

Before the Court is a Notice of Removal filed by defendant Enrique Iglesias (“Defendant”) on
December 17, 2014. Defendant asserts that this Court has jurisdiction over the action brought against
him by plaintiff Steve Morales (“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).
The Notice of Removal states, “[a]lthough counsel for Plaintiff has artfully omitted to allege the
residence of Plaintiff, Defendant is informed and believes that Plaintiff is a citizen of the State of New
CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 1 of 2

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

CV 14-9650 PA (VBKx)

Date

Title

January 2, 2015

Steve Morales v. Enrique Iglesias

York.” Notice of Removal ¶ 3. Defendant’s unsubstantiated allegation is insufficient to establish
Plaintiff’s citizenship. See Kanter, 265 F.3d at 857. “Absent unusual circumstances, a party seeking to
invoke diversity jurisdiction should be able to allege affirmatively the actual citizenship of the relevant
parties.” Id.; Bradford v. Mitchell Bros. Truck Lines, 217 F. Supp. 525, 527 (N.D. Cal. 1963). As a
result, Defendant’s allegation is insufficient to invoke this Court’s diversity jurisdiction.
For the foregoing reason, Defendant has failed to meet its burden to demonstrate the Court’s
diversity jurisdiction. Accordingly, the Court remands this action to the Los Angeles County Superior
Court, Case No. BC564802. See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).
IT IS SO ORDERED.

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 2 of 2