Evelyn Mortensen v. Comerica Management Company et al

Filing 29

MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) by Judge Dolly M. Gee: PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO REMAND IS DENIED 26 . The June 5, 2015 hearing is VACATED. (lc)

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

Date

CV 14-9825 DMG (FFMx)

Title Evelyn Mortensen v. Comerica Management Co., et al.
Present: The Honorable

May 29, 2015
Page

1 of 1

DOLLY M. GEE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

KANE TIEN
Deputy Clerk

NOT REPORTED
Court Reporter

Attorneys Present for Plaintiff(s)
None Present

Attorneys Present for Defendant(s)
None Present

Proceedings: IN CHAMBERS—PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO REMAND [26]
On January 29, 2015, this Court, sua sponte, issued an order to show cause (“OSC”) why
this action should not be remanded to state court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. [Doc. #
12.] On February 12, 2015, the Court issued a second order requiring Defendants to respond to
issues raised by Plaintiff regarding timeliness of removal and the amount in controversy. [Doc. #
16.] The parties thoroughly briefed the issues of subject matter jurisdiction, timeliness, and
amount in controversy at that time. [Doc. ## 13, 15, 17.] On April 14, 2015, this Court
discharged the OSC, ruling that “Defendants [had] met their burden of establishing that removal
is proper.” (“Order”) [Doc. # 20.]
On April 28, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion to remand this case to state court on the basis
that Defendants’ Notice of Removal was not timely and that Defendants failed to allege
Plaintiff’s citizenship in her notice of removal. [Doc. # 26.] Plaintiff does not present any new
arguments or evidence in support of this motion, and largely rehashes her previous arguments
made in response to the OSC.
The Court specifically found in its April 14, 2015 order that Defendants’ Notice of
Removal was timely filed and that Plaintiff is a citizen of California “beyond peradventure.”
Order at 4-5. It is now the law of the case that removal was timely and that Plaintiff’s citizenship
has been established for purposes of diversity jurisdiction. See Alaimalo v. United States, 645
F.3d 1042, 1049 (9th Cir. 2011) (per the law of the case doctrine, a prior decision should be
followed unless “(1) the decision is clearly erroneous and its enforcement would work a manifest
injustice; (2) intervening controlling authority makes reconsideration appropriate; or (3)
substantially different evidence [is] adduced [to the court].”). Plaintiff is admonished not to
waste the time of the Court or opposing parties by seeking to relitigate issues which have already
been decided.
In light of the foregoing, the motion to remand is DENIED. The June 5, 2015 hearing is
VACATED. IT IS SO ORDERED.

CV-90

CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL

Initials of Deputy Clerk KT